bing_site_moves

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the empty_response label and the strong warning that silence must not be reported as 'no problems found', plus an untrusted-data-handling instruction. It doesn't cover pagination or result size, but for this read-only tool the extra semantics are valuable.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose before the alternative and the empty_response caveat. No filler; each sentence carries distinct routing, behavioral, or safety information.

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?

Given no output schema and one undocumented param, the description is close to complete: it explains the empty-result case and the untrusted-data rule. The only gap is site_url format guidance, which is the one thing an agent could get wrong before calling.

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?

The schema has one parameter (site_url) with 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It implies the tool operates on 'one site' but never clarifies the expected site_url format (full URL vs hostname). Baseline 3 given a single param, though the format gap is the main miss.

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 ('List site-move requests Bing has recorded for one site') with precise scope ('for one site'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling bing_sites_list, so an agent can route 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 an explicit when-to-use ('when the user asks whether a domain or URL migration was already submitted') and an explicit when-not ('Do not use this for the account's site list; call bing_sites_list'). The alternative is named with the condition that selects it.

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