bing_crawl_settings

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds two behaviors the annotations cannot convey: the empty_response label means silence rather than a clean result and must not be reported as 'no problems found', and untrusted-marked fields must be treated as data, not instructions. Both are non-obvious, high-consequence traits for an agent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then trigger, then exclusion, then edge-case warnings. No filler and nothing repeated from the structured fields.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the return burden and handles the critical empty-result case, so an agent will not misreport an absence of data as a clean bill of health. The only gap is the site_url format, which neither schema nor description resolves.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required site_url parameter, and the description only says 'one site' without giving the expected format (scheme, host, path, or property identifier). The schema already supplies name and type, so the description adds a little scoping but not the syntax needed to call it confidently.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the crawl settings Bing has for one site') and enumerates the content ('crawl rate and crawl boost'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from bing_crawl_stats, so an agent can separate it from the 60+ sibling tools without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the user asks how fast Bing is allowed to crawl the site') plus a negative case with the named alternative ('Do not use this for crawl totals or errors; call bing_crawl_stats'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative pattern.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.