bing_traffic_page

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: an empty_response label that must not be reported as 'no problems found', and a prompt-injection rule that untrusted fields are data only. This is exactly the beyond-annotation disclosure the dimension rewards.

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 sentences, each with a distinct job: purpose, positive trigger, two exclusion routes, and output/injection caveats. Front-loaded purpose, zero filler.

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, yet the description explains the empty-result signal and the untrusted-field contract, which is more than most tools in this family. The only real gap is parameter format guidance for site_url and page.

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% for two required parameters, so the description carries the burden and largely fails it. Only a weak indirect hint exists — 'which queries one URL ranks for' implies `page` is a URL related to `site_url` — but no formats, accepted forms, or the site_url/page relationship are specified.

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 explicit scope: 'List the search queries that sent Bing traffic to one page.' It also names the siblings it is not (bing_traffic_pages, bing_url_info), so an agent can distinguish it from ~50 similarly named traffic tools without opening a 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 queries one URL ranks for') plus two named exclusions pointing to the correct alternative for site-wide page lists and for crawl status. 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.