bing_query_page_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is covered. The description goes further with two non-obvious behaviors: an empty_response label meaning 'silence, not a measurement' that must never be reported as 'no problems found', and a prompt-injection rule to treat untrusted fields as data. It stops short of describing pagination or limits, but the added behavioral context is substantial.

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 purpose sentence followed by usage, exclusions and caveats, with zero filler. Every sentence carries routing or behavioral information an agent actually needs.

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, so the description should describe the returned page rows, but it only names the empty_response label and the untrusted-field convention. The agent learns nothing about which metrics come back (impressions, clicks, position) for a stats 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for both parameters. It does convey that site_url identifies the single site and query is the search query, but it gives no format, expected encoding, or matching semantics, leaving the agent to infer the rest.

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, resource and cardinality: 'List the pages on one site that Bing showed for one search query.' The scope (one site, one query, list of pages) immediately separates it from the detail, trend and traffic siblings 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 an explicit positive trigger ('Use when the user asks which URLs rank for a query') plus two named exclusions with their alternatives: bing_query_page_detail_stats for a single page's series and bing_traffic_query for site-wide trend. Routing is unambiguous.

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