bing_keyword_stats

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond that: the empty_response label semantics ('silence, not a measurement') and the untrusted-field handling directive. These are behavioral traits the annotations cannot express.

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 routing guidance, then edge-case handling. Dense but every sentence earns its place. The empty_response explanation could be tighter but it is important.

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?

Covers purpose, alternative routing, and empty-result semantics without an output schema. The main gap is country/language format expectations given 0% schema coverage, but otherwise the description is complete for correct invocation.

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 schema carries only names and types. The description says 'one keyword in a country and language' which gives positional context but no format details for country or language codes. Baseline 3 applies given the description adds 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 (Read) and resource (Bing's historical statistics for one keyword) with explicit scope (one country and language, not tied to a site). This clearly distinguishes it from bing_keyword and bing_related_keywords.

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?

Explicitly names when to use (user asks how a keyword trended over time) and when not to use, routing to bing_related_keywords for related queries and bing_keyword for summed impressions. This is a textbook when/when-not/alternatives pattern.

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