bing_geo_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds behavior annotations cannot: empty-response semantics ('silence, not a measurement', must not be reported as 'no problems found') and a prompt-injection handling rule for untrusted fields. This is substantive context beyond the structured hints.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries a distinct job: purpose, trigger, exclusion/alternative, empty-response interpretation, and data-safety rule. No filler.

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 one-param listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what to expect on an empty result and how to treat returned data, which is the main missing piece from structured fields. Only the site_url format is left unaddressed.

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?

Single required parameter site_url with 0% schema description coverage. The description implies 'one site' but never specifies the expected format (protocol, trailing slash, domain vs. full URL), so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 country and region targeting rules Bing has for one site.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling bing_query_parameters, so an agent can route correctly 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?

Gives explicit trigger ('Use when the user asks how a URL is geotargeted') and an explicit exclusion with the named alternative ('Do not use this for query parameters; call bing_query_parameters'). No inference required.

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