bing_plan_verify_site

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that no change is sent to Bing, that only intent is recorded, that quota may be read, and that the agent must not tell the user the change was applied. It also specifies the return contract (plan id plus CLI apply command). Annotations (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true) alone would not let an agent infer any of this.

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?

Four tight sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, positive usage condition, two exclusions with alternatives, behavioral caveats, and output instruction. Front-loaded with the core action and zero 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating exactly what to return (plan id and CLI apply command) and what not to claim to the user. Combined with the plan-then-apply workflow caveats and quota note, an agent has everything needed to call and report on this 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?

Only one parameter (site_url) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description supplies no format, syntax, or validation detail for it. The phrase 'a site that is already on the account' loosely implies the URL must be a registered property, but that is the only hint about what value to pass.

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 verify a site that is already on the account'), including the crucial scope qualifier that the site must already exist on the account. This immediately separates it from the add-site plan tool 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 ('when the user wants Bing to check verification and a person must review it first') and two explicit when-not-to-use cases with named alternatives ('Do not use this to add the site; call bing_plan_add_site' and 'Do not use this to read the verification secret; no MCP tool returns one'). This is textbook routing guidance.

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