bing_plan_fetch_url

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

Annotations only give generic hints (readOnlyHint=false, openWorld=true), while the description adds quota consumption on apply, that this call sends no change to Bing and only records intent, that it may read quota, and an explicit instruction not to tell the user the change was applied. That is behaviorally rich context the annotations cannot convey.

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 action, then the cost, then the routing rules and the return-value guidance; every sentence carries information. The two parallel 'Do not use this…' sentences are slightly repetitive but justified by the dense sibling set.

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 the plan/apply lifecycle, quota cost, non-effects on Bing, and what to return (plan id plus CLI apply command) despite there being no output schema. Only the parameter meanings are left uncovered, which keeps it short of complete for a 2-param tool.

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% and neither 'url' nor 'site_url' is explained in the description, leaving the distinction between the target URL and the verified site property entirely undocumented. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, and with zero coverage it should compensate but does not.

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 — 'Record a plan to ask Bing to fetch one URL' — and immediately clarifies the two-step plan/apply model. It distinguishes itself from bing_url_info and bing_plan_submit_url by name, so an agent can route without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Explicit positive condition ('when the user wants a recrawl and a person must review the quota spend first') plus two explicit exclusions with the correct alternatives named for each. Nothing is left to inference about when to choose this tool.

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