bing_link_counts

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 behavioral context those annotations cannot express: pagination granularity, the empty_response label and the explicit rule that silence must not be reported as 'no problems found', and a prompt-injection guard for untrusted fields. These are high-value, non-obvious traits.

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 short sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, trigger, exclusion/alternative, then failure-mode and safety semantics. The scoping and alternative routing are front-loaded before the cautionary details.

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 correctly compensates by explaining the empty-response contract and the untrusted-field policy. The only real gap is the unaddressed site_url convention and pagination bounds, minor relative to everything else it covers.

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 must carry full parameter meaning, and it largely does not. 'One page of results at a time' hints that 'page' drives paging, but there is no page numbering scheme, default, or maximum, and nothing describes the expected format of site_url (full URL vs. domain, protocol requirements).

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 ('Read inbound-link counts Bing reports for one site') plus the unit of retrieval ('one page of results at a time'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling by naming bing_url_links and the different data that tool returns.

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 trigger ('Use when the user asks how many links Bing sees pointing at the site') and an explicit exclusion with a redirect ('Do not use this for the linking URLs themselves; call bing_url_links'). Nothing about tool selection 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.