bing_indexnow_key_plan

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, the description discloses that it sends nothing to Bing or IndexNow, consumes no quota, records no plan, and stores the key nowhere — directing the operator to save and publish it. These are exactly the non-obvious behavioral facts an agent needs for a planning tool, and they are consistent with 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?

Purpose, scope, alternatives, and the side-effect profile are front-loaded across four tight sentences with no filler. It is slightly longer than needed — the quota/plan sentence and the closing 'key is not stored' sentence overlap thematically — but every sentence carries real information.

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 still tells the agent what it produces (key material, key-file URL, file bytes, live-file status), what it does not do (no submission, no quota, no plan), and the required follow-up (operator must save and publish the key). This is complete for a read-only planning tool with four undocumented parameters.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never names the parameters. It conceptually implies the meaning of 'key' (generate or supply an existing one), 'host', 'key_location', and 'check_key_file' (report whether the file is served), but the agent must still guess the exact semantics, formats, and whether key_location is an input or output.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — working out IndexNow key material for a host — and enumerates the concrete outputs (a key, the key-file URL, the required file bytes, whether the file is already served). It explicitly contrasts itself with the submission siblings, so an agent can distinguish it 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?

It gives an explicit 'use when' condition (the user needs an IndexNow key or wants to know if the key file is live) and an explicit 'do not use this to submit URLs' exclusion paired with the correct alternatives (bing_indexnow_submit for direct writes, bing_plan_indexnow_submit when a human applies the plan). 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.