bing_related_keywords

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses that the call is not site-scoped, defines the empty_response label and forbids interpreting it as 'no problems found', and mandates treating untrusted-marked fields as data rather than instructions. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent cannot derive from the annotations.

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 leads, routing exclusions follow, and the caveats about empty results and untrusted data close it out. Every sentence carries distinct operational value with no restatement of the name or redundant framing.

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 carries the return-value burden and does cover the important edge case (empty_response) and field trust handling. It stops short of describing the general shape of a successful result, which is the only remaining gap for a 5-param read 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% across 5 required parameters, and the description only maps them conceptually ('one query in a country and language over a date range'). It does not state expected formats for country, language, or the date fields, so an agent still has to guess at code conventions despite the conceptual coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List keywords Bing relates to one query') and adds the scoping dimensions (country, language, date range). It explicitly distinguishes itself from bing_keyword_stats and bing_keyword, so an agent can route correctly 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 gives the positive trigger ('when the user asks which other queries sit next to a keyword') and two explicit exclusions naming the correct alternatives, closing the two most plausible mis-routes (keyword history, impressions over time). Nothing about selection 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.