bing_url_links

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, it discloses edge-case behavior (empty_response label means silence, not a measurement) and an injection-safety rule (treat untrusted fields as data, never instructions). These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent needs and cannot get from annotations.

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, all front-loaded and purposeful: purpose, routing rule, edge-case caveat, and safety rule. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, routing, edge-case semantics, and injection safety. The only shortfall is undocumented parameters, which is a genuine omission but not fatal for a simple read tool.

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 description does not document any of the three parameters: it never clarifies the distinction between site_url and url, nor the pagination role of page. With the schema carrying no descriptions, the description fails to compensate for a real gap.

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 (List) and resource (inbound links) scoped to a single URL, and explicitly contrasts itself with the site-wide sibling bing_link_counts. An agent can distinguish it from siblings 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ("user asks which pages link to a URL") and when-not-to-use (site-wide link counts, route to bing_link_counts). Names the alternative tool by name, leaving nothing to inference.

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