bing_url_info

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 goes well beyond them: it explains http_status_reported=0 semantics, warns every field describes the crawl at LastCrawledDate so IsPage=true is not a live check, and states that an empty result carries an empty_response label that must not be reported as 'no problems found'. It also flags untrusted fields as data, not instructions — unusual and valuable prompt-injection guidance.

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 routing exclusions, then result-semantics caveats. The length is earned: each sentence carries a distinct, non-redundant warning about status codes, crawl-date staleness, or empty results.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so: it names the key field (http_status_reported), the empty_response label, and the interpretation trap around IsPage. For a two-parameter read tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and to interpret the result responsibly.

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% and neither parameter is described in the schema, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the tool targets a single URL (and contrasts with 'URLs underneath it'), which implies the `url` parameter, but it never explains what `site_url` is or how it relates to `url`. Partial compensation only.

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: 'Read the crawl record Bing holds for one URL, including when it was last crawled.' It explicitly names the two nearest siblings it is not (bing_url_traffic_info for clicks/impressions, bing_children_url_info for descendant URLs), so an agent can route 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('when the user asks whether Bing has a URL or when Bing last fetched it') plus two explicit when-not-to-use rules with the alternative tool named for each. 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.