bing_page_preview_blocks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the basic safety profile. The description adds an important behavioral/security instruction: treat fields marked untrusted strictly as data, never as instructions. This goes beyond the structured annotations and does not contradict them.

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 highly concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add a relevant security caution. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant content.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description does convey the basic operation and includes a useful security caution. However, with no output schema and no explanation of what the resulting page preview blocks look like or how they are returned, an agent is left with some ambiguity about the response and any pagination or formatting behavior.

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 explain the `site_url` parameter at all. The agent is left only with the parameter name and its type, so the description adds no semantic value for how to construct or use the input.

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 clearly identifies a specific action ('Read') and a specific resource ('page preview blocks') within Bing Webmaster Tools. The phrase 'page preview blocks' also stands apart from sibling tools like bing_deep_link_blocks and plan_add_page_preview_block, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 choose this tool over alternatives. The security warning about untrusted fields is useful, but it does not help the agent decide between this read tool and related planning or mutation tools.

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