bing_submission_quota

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: an empty result returns an 'empty_response' label that is silence rather than a measurement and must not be reported as 'no problems found', plus a prompt-injection directive about untrusted fields. That is exactly the kind of semantics annotations cannot express.

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 exclusion, then two output-safety caveats. Every sentence carries weight, though the closing untrusted-data directive is somewhat generic boilerplate that could be shared across the whole tool family rather than repeated here.

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 still discloses return semantics: a quota count plus the 'empty_response' labeling for the empty case and untrusted-field handling. For a single-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs to interpret the result correctly is missing.

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 sole parameter site_url is never characterized in the description beyond the vague phrase 'for one site.' It does not say whether the value is a bare domain, a full URL, or a site identifier, leaving the one input an agent must supply under-specified in both schema and prose.

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 with scope: 'Read how many URL submissions Bing still allows for one site today.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling bing_content_submission_quota, 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?

Names the triggering condition ('when the user asks whether a URL or a batch can still be submitted') and an explicit exclusion with the alternative to use instead ('Do not use this for content-submission quota; call bing_content_submission_quota'). 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.