bing_query_page_detail_stats

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the empty_response label semantics and the rule that untrusted fields must be treated as data, not instructions. It omits rate limits and auth requirements, but the added operational caveats are substantive.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then usage routing, then two operational caveats. All four sentences carry distinct, actionable information, though the density of caveats in the back half makes it slightly long for a single-read description.

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 no parameter documentation, so the agent learns nothing about the shape of the returned time-series (fields, granularity) beyond the empty-response case. The description covers the most important behavioral gotcha, but leaves the return contract and parameter formats unstated.

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 all three required parameters (site_url, query, page) are undocumented anywhere. The prose implies each parameter's meaning but never specifies formats — e.g., whether 'page' is a full URL or a path, or what form site_url takes. With low coverage the description should compensate and 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?

The first sentence gives a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('Bing traffic over time'), and scope ('one search query on one page'), which is exactly what distinguishes it from sibling traffic tools. It also explicitly names the sibling it must not be confused with, 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?

It states the triggering condition ('when the user asks how a specific page performs for a specific query') and the exclusion ('do not use this to list every page for the query'), naming bing_query_page_stats as the alternative. This is explicit when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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