bing_keyword_stats

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

The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds a meaningful safety directive about treating untrusted fields as data, not instructions, which is important context not present in the annotations. It does not contradict 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 succinct, with no redundant filler, and the key safety directive earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds a compact security note.

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?

Given the sparse schema and large sibling set, the description leaves too much unspecified: no expected return shape, no parameter clarification, and no indication of when this tool is preferable to related bing_* tools. The security warning is useful but does not complete the operational picture.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it does not. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but there is no guidance about expected formats, such as country codes, language codes, or how the keyword should be structured. An agent still has to guess important input details.

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 names a specific verb ('Read'), a concrete resource ('keyword stats'), and a source ('Bing Webmaster Tools'), so the basic purpose is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like bing_keyword or bing_traffic_queries, but 'keyword stats' is specific enough to be more than generic.

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 versus siblings such as bing_keyword, bing_related_keywords, or bing_traffic_queries. The only usage-adjacent note is a security reminder about untrusted fields, not a tool-selection guideline.

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