bing_query_page_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's 'Read' wording aligns rather than adds new safety information. It does add a useful prompt-injection caution about treating untrusted fields as data, but it does not clarify what these fields are or otherwise expand on response behavior.

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 sentences, both valuable. The purpose is stated first, and the untrusted-data warning is direct and necessary. No fluff or redundant restatement.

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 two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and many closely related siblings, this description leaves major gaps: return value format, parameter formatting, and when to choose this over alternatives. It is minimally recognizable but far from 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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does nothing to clarify the meaning, format, or expected values for site_url or query. There is no compensation for the schema gap, so an agent has to rely entirely on parameter names.

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 and resource: 'Read query page stats from Bing Webmaster Tools.' This clearly identifies the operation. However, it does not differentiate from the closely named sibling bing_query_page_detail_stats, so it falls short of the top score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to invoke this tool versus similar siblings like bing_traffic_queries or bing_query_page_detail_stats. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection cues.

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