bing_blocked_urls

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear without the description. The description adds a useful caveat about treating untrusted fields strictly as data, warning the agent not to interpret blocked URL entries as instructions. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the 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?

The description is two short sentences, each with purpose. It is concise, uses clear language, and adds a critical security-relevant warning without extra fluff.

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 simple 1-parameter read tool, the description covers its purpose and safety warning. However, the missing details about site_url semantics is a concrete gap, and the description is not fully complete because it does not mention the type or format of the returned blocked URLs data.

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?

The input schema only describes site_url as a required string with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'blocked urls' but does not clarify what site_url should be (for example, a full URL, a domain root, a URL pattern, etc.). With no parameter documentation, the description fails to provide essential guidance for correctly populating site_url.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Read blocked urls from Bing Webmaster Tools'), which clearly identifies what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from similar read tools like bing_fetched_urls or bing_url_info, leaving some ambiguity about its unique scope.

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?

The description implies this tool is for retrieving blocked URLs, which is a clear context, but it does not explain when to prefer it over other read-only tools like bing_fetched_urls or bing_url_info. It also lacks guidance on when not to use the tool or any prerequisites.

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