bing_sitemaps

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds what annotations cannot: the empty_response label means silence rather than a measurement and must not be reported as 'no problems found', plus a prompt-injection guard on untrusted fields. Both are genuine behavioral disclosures.

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?

Four short sentences ordered by importance: purpose, trigger, alternative, then the two safety caveats. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by explaining the empty_response case. Combined with the sibling routing and injection warning, an agent has everything needed to call and report on this tool 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% and the single required parameter site_url is never mentioned in the description. 'For one site' hints that the parameter scopes to a site, but the expected format (domain vs. full URL, protocol, subdomain handling) is left entirely 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the sitemaps Bing has for one site') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling, bing_sitemap_details. An agent can route between the two without inspecting 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 trigger ('Use when the user asks which sitemaps are submitted') and an explicit exclusion with the correct alternative ('Do not use this for one sitemap's status; call bing_sitemap_details'). This is the full when/when-not/alternative pattern.

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