bing_page_preview_blocks

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: an empty result carries an empty_response label and must not be read as 'no problems found', and untrusted fields must be treated as data not instructions. Both are safety-critical traits absent from 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 is front-loaded, then usage, then the sibling exclusion, then the reporting caveat and the untrusted-data rule. Every sentence adds a distinct, actionable constraint with no repetition or 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?

With no output schema, the description still conveys the meaningful return semantics (empty_response labeling, untrusted fields). For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, this is complete enough to call and interpret 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for site_url. It says 'for one site' but never clarifies the expected format (bare domain vs. full URL vs. verified site identifier), which is the one real ambiguity for this parameter. Minimum viable rather than compensating 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 the page-preview blocks Bing has for one site') and immediately scopes it to a single site. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the closest lexical sibling, bing_blocked_urls, so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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 an explicit when ('the user asks which snippets or previews are suppressed'), an explicit when-not ('URLs blocked from the index'), and names the alternative tool to call instead. 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.