bing_plan_indexnow_submit

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description is consistent with them: it is a non-destructive write that only records intent. It adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations — that no change is sent to Bing, that quota may be read, and that the agent must not claim the change was applied. However, it does not say whether repeated identical calls create duplicate plans (relevant given idempotentHint=false) or what happens to a plan that is never applied. With annotations carrying safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose and trigger before the exclusions, and every sentence carries routing or behavioral weight. It is on the long side for a description, with the exclusions restated as separate sentences, but nothing is 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?

There is no output schema, and the description covers the return contract itself: return the plan id and the CLI apply command, and do not tell the user the change was applied. For a plan-recording tool with a required follow-up human step, that is exactly the missing information an agent needs.

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 the load. It implies semantics for two of four parameters ('one host' constrains host; 'batch of URLs' describes url_list) and the key-file exclusion hints at what `key` is, but `key` versus `key_location` — the distinction an agent is most likely to get wrong — is never explained. Partial compensation only.

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 submit a batch of URLs to IndexNow ... for one host') with the target endpoint named. It explicitly distinguishes itself from three siblings (bing_indexnow_key_plan, bing_plan_submit_url, bing_plan_submit_url_batch), so an agent can route 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?

Gives the positive trigger ('use when the user wants an IndexNow submission and a person must apply it first') plus two explicit exclusions with the correct alternatives named for each. Nothing about when-not-to-use 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.