bing_query_parameters

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds two genuinely new behavioral traits: the empty_response label meaning silence rather than a measurement, and the instruction to treat untrusted fields strictly as data. These are material operating semantics an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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 purpose, then usage, then the alternative, then the safety/empty-response caveats. Dense but every sentence earns its place and follows a logical order.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the critical return behavior (empty_response label) and safety posture, plus explicit routing to a sibling. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results correctly.

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% with a single required param, so the description must carry the burden; it only implies single-site scoping ('for one site') and gives no format or validity guidance for site_url. Some added meaning, but incomplete compensation for the coverage gap.

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 (List) and resource (query parameters Bing has configured for one site), with explicit scope. It names a sibling it is not to be confused with (bing_geo_settings), so the agent can distinguish it without opening the 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 both when-to-use (the user asks which URL parameters Bing knows about) and when-not-to-use, with a concrete alternative named ('call bing_geo_settings'). 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.