bing_plan_list

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, not open-world), but the description adds genuine non-obvious context: verification and delegation secrets in plan arguments are returned redacted, and the redaction does not affect plan execution. That is real behavioral disclosure beyond structured fields, though it doesn't cover pagination or list size limits.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then usage routing, then the caveat. No filler and each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description has to convey return content; it names the plan states (waiting/applied/expired) and the redaction behavior, which is enough to call and interpret the tool. It stops short of describing ordering, pagination, or the full state enum.

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?

The tool takes no parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for zero-param tools applies.

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 recorded plans and their current states') and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling bing_plan_show. An agent can distinguish it from the ~40 other bing_plan_* tools without opening a 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 trigger ('when the user asks which changes are waiting, applied or expired') and an explicit exclusion with the named alternative ('Do not use this to read one plan's arguments; call bing_plan_show'). Routing is unambiguous.

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