bing_sitemap_details

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

Beyond annotations that mark this as a safe read, the description adds critical behavioral context: an empty response is silence rather than a measurement and must not be reported as 'no problems found.' It also warns to treat untrusted fields as data, not instructions.

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?

The description is four dense sentences with no wasted text. Purpose, usage, exclusions, and behavioral caveats are front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

For a simple read tool with no output schema, the description covers usage, exclusions, empty-response semantics, and untrusted-field handling well. It is only incomplete on parameter meanings, a gap that matters because the schema provides no descriptions.

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 coverage is 0% for two required parameters, so the description must compensate. It never explains the roles or formats of site_url and feed_url, only referring vaguely to 'one sitemap URL,' which leaves the parameter semantics largely undocumented.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: 'Read Bing's status for one sitemap URL.' It clearly distinguishes this from bing_sitemaps by explicitly saying not to use it for listing every sitemap.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('when the user asks whether a specific sitemap was fetched or how many URLs it has') and a named alternative for the excluded case ('Do not use this to list every sitemap; call bing_sitemaps').

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