bing_deep_link_blocks

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the empty_response label semantics ('silence, not a measurement') and the untrusted-field handling rule. These are genuinely useful behavioral disclosures that aren't captured by the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then usage, then exclusions, then the two critical caveats about empty results and untrusted data. Every sentence earns its place despite being multi-sentence.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, the misleading-empty-result trap, and prompt-injection safety. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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?

The single site_url parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It implies scoping to 'one site' but never clarifies the expected format (full URL vs host) or any constraints, adding only marginal meaning over the bare schema.

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 ('List the deep-link blocks Bing has for one site') and explicitly names the sibling it must not be confused with (bing_page_preview_blocks). An agent can distinguish it from bing_blocked_urls and bing_page_preview_blocks without opening any 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?

Provides an explicit when-to-use trigger ('user asks which sitelinks or deep links are suppressed') and an explicit when-not with a redirect to the alternative tool. Nothing is left to inference.

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