bing_connected_pages

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a useful guardrail beyond annotations by warning that fields marked as untrusted must be treated strictly as data. This is meaningful behavior guidance for an agent handling connected page content.

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?

Two short sentences: one states the core purpose and the other states an important security caveat. There is no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded.

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 only one required parameter and safe read-only annotations, this description is mostly sufficient. A small gap is that it does not describe what a 'connected page' is or what the returned data shape looks like, but it is not a barrier to invoking the 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 compensate. The only parameter, site_url, is named but not explained in terms of expected format, whether it needs protocol, or whether it must match a connected/verified Bing property.

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?

Starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Read connected pages from Bing Webmaster Tools.' This identifies the operation and distinguishes it from the many other Bing fetch tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 wording implies when to use it: when connected pages for a site are needed. However, it gives no explicit routing guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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