bing_traffic_query

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds material context beyond them: the empty_response label must be treated as silence rather than a clean bill of health, and untrusted fields must be handled as data. It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or return shape, keeping it below a 5.

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 selection guidance, then interpretation caveats, then a safety rule. Every sentence carries a distinct instruction and none are redundant, which is strong structure for a short description.

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 appropriately explains the empty_response case and the data-trust handling. It leaves the 'over time' claim unaddressed (no date-range parameter is mentioned even though the schema has none) and does not describe the general return shape, so a small completeness gap remains.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly defines both required parameters ('one search query on one site') and confirms a single-site, single-query scope, but gives no format or syntax guidance for site_url or query (e.g., full URL vs. domain, match type), leaving meaningful gaps.

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 (Read), resource (Bing traffic), and precise scope: one search query on one site, over time. The two 'Do not use' sentences name the sibling tools (bing_traffic_queries, bing_query_page_stats) that would be confused with it, so an agent can route correctly without opening any 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?

Explicit 'Use when' selects the tool for named queries with clicks/impressions/position metrics, and two explicit exclusions route query discovery and page-level analysis to named alternatives. The empty_response note also tells the agent how to interpret the absence of data, which is usage guidance in effect.

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