bing_crawl_issues

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful security directive about handling untrusted fields as data, but it does not disclose response format, pagination, rate limits, or any other runtime behavior.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the security warning earns its place as an important caveat for handling external data.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and read-only annotations, so completeness is mostly adequate. However, there is no description of what the response contains, whether pagination is involved, or what values are valid for site_url, which leaves some uncertainty for an agent.

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 mention site_url at all. The only parameter is self-explanatory from its name, but no guidance is given on expected URL format, whether paths are allowed, or how the site must be validated in Bing Webmaster Tools.

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 clear verb ('Read') and resource ('crawl issues from Bing Webmaster Tools'), making the core action identifiable. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling crawl-related tools like bing_crawl_stats, but the phrasing 'crawl issues' is specific enough to convey the target resource.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention bing_crawl_stats, bing_crawl_settings, or bing_fetched_urls, leaving the agent to infer selection from the tool name and sibling list alone.

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