bing_children_url_info

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior; the description adds meaningful extra context by warning that fields marked untrusted must be treated strictly as data, never as instructions. This is valuable behavioral guidance not present in 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 short, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence earns its place. The security caveat is a strong, non-redundant addition.

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 tool with four parameters, a nested filter object, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is not complete enough. It does not explain what 'children url info' contains, what filtering or pagination behavior exists, or how this differs from nearby sibling tools.

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 explain site_url, url, page, or filter_properties. The agent must infer parameter meaning from names alone, which is insufficient for the nested filter_properties object.

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 uses a clear verb ("Read") and identifies a specific resource (children URL info from Bing Webmaster Tools). It is understandable, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from closely named siblings such as bing_children_url_traffic_info or bing_url_info.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, such as whether to prefer it over traffic-focused variants or when a filter is needed. The only directive is a safety caveat about untrusted fields, not when-selection criteria.

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