bing_geo_settings

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

The annotations already disclose readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a security-relevant behavioral note: untrusted fields should be treated as data, not instructions.

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, both necessary: one defines the operation and the other adds an important safety constraint. No repetition or filler.

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 and well-covered by annotations, but there is no output schema or description of what the response contains beyond the untrusted-field warning. Some behavior, including site_url semantics and the shape of geo settings data, remains implicit.

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?

There is one required parameter, site_url, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the expected URL format, whether it must be a verified Bing Webmaster Tools property, or what relationship it has to geo settings.

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?

"Read geo settings from Bing Webmaster Tools" uses a specific verb and a distinct resource. The read intent clearly separates it from the bing_plan_* mutation siblings, even though no alternative is explicitly named.

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 "use this to read existing geo settings," which is enough context for a simple read operation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to read vs. write siblings such as bing_plan_add_country_region_settings and bing_plan_remove_country_region_settings.

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