bing_plan_submit_url

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that it 'sends no change to Bing and only records intent', that it may read quota, and that the human-review gate precedes any submission. It also instructs the agent not to report the change as applied and to return the plan id plus CLI apply command — critical behavioral framing that annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) cannot convey. No contradiction with annotations, since recording a plan is legitimately a non-read-only action.

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 core action, then constraints, then behavioral warnings, then the required agent response. Every sentence carries unique, actionable information with no 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?

Complete on behavior and return handling (plan id + CLI apply command) despite no output schema, and safety implications are clear. The only shortfall is the undefined parameter vocabulary, which leaves the agent guessing about site_url vs url semantics.

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 coverage is 0% and neither 'site_url' nor 'url' is documented anywhere. The description only weakly implies a site/page distinction ('one page', 'one URL') without defining formats or the relationship between the two parameters. For a 2-required-param tool this is a real gap the description fails to fill.

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 ('Record a plan to submit'), resource (one URL), and target system (Bing for crawling and indexing), plus the scope limit ('one URL'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from bing_plan_submit_url_batch, 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 explicit when-to-use ('user wants one page submitted and a person must review it') and two explicit when-not-to-use cases with named alternatives: bing_plan_submit_url_batch for many URLs, bing_submission_quota for quota reads. 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.