bing_query_page_detail_stats

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only because 'readOnlyHint': true, 'idempotentHint': true, and 'destructiveHint': false. The description adds a useful behavioral disclosure: fields may be 'marked untrusted' and must be treated as data, never instructions. This injection-risk context goes beyond what annotations already state.

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 short and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose and the second sentence adds an important security caveat. There is no wasted wording.

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 tool with no output schema and sparse parameter documentation, the description leaves important operational context unexplained: exactly which stats are returned, how 'detail' differs from the many sibling stats tools, and any pagination or format details. The security warning is valuable but does not make the description complete.

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 three parameters, site_url, query, and page, have no descriptions in the schema, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain the meaning or constraints of these parameters but does not.

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 states that the tool reads query page detail stats from Bing Webmaster Tools, and the read-only intent is reinforced by annotations. However, it does not explain what 'detail stats' specifically are or distinguish this from siblings like bing_query_page_stats or bing_traffic_query, so full differentiation is missing.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over the many sibling reporting tools such as bing_query_page_stats, bing_traffic_pages, or bing_traffic_queries. The only extra instruction is a security warning about untrusted fields, which is not a usage-alternative guideline.

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