bing_crawl_stats

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive): it documents the empty_response label semantics, warns that an empty result is 'silence, not a measurement' and must not be reported as 'no problems found', and flags untrusted fields as data rather than instructions. These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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 tight sentences with no filler: purpose first, then usage, then the sibling exclusion, then result-interpretation caveats. Every sentence carries actionable information and the purpose leads.

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 compensates by explaining the shape of results (crawl totals, errors, inbound links) and the empty_response label semantics. Combined with the injection warning, an agent has everything needed to call and correctly interpret this read tool.

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 site_url parameter, and the description only implies single-site scoping ('for one site') without specifying the expected format (full URL vs. domain vs. property identifier). It conveys the operational unit but not the value syntax the schema leaves undocumented.

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 ('Read') and resource ('Bing crawl totals') with scope ('for one site') and enumerates the content ('crawl errors and inbound links'). It also explicitly names the sibling bing_crawl_issues as the wrong tool for a related task, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the 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 triggering condition ('use when the user asks how much Bing crawled or whether crawl volume changed') and an explicit exclusion with a redirect ('Do not use this for the individual broken URLs; call bing_crawl_issues'). Both the when and the when-not are covered.

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