bing_crawl_stats

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

The annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds an important behavioral/security detail: fields marked untrusted must be treated as data, not as instructions. It does not disclose pagination, size, or rate-limit behavior for a full 5.

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, front-loaded sentences accomplish the task with no filler. The first provides the action and resource, the second contributes a meaningful security guardrail.

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 read-only, one-parameter tool this is reasonably complete, but the description does not explain what the returned crawl stats look like, which fields may be untrusted, or how they are structured. The lack of an output schema makes the missing return-shape guidance more noticeable.

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 provides no extra meaning for site_url beyond the parameter name. A URL format example would be needed; the name is self-explanatory enough to avoid a 1, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema explanation.

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 ('Read') and a clear resource ('crawl stats from Bing Webmaster Tools'). It can be told apart from siblings like bing_crawl_issues and bing_crawl_settings by its object of interest, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about how it differs from the many other Bing read tools. The only additional sentence is a security instruction, not a usage-selection guideline.

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