bing_related_keywords

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

The description adds a useful security context—fields marked untrusted must be treated as data, not instructions—which goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations. This is not a full behavioral disclosure, but it is a valuable extra safeguard and 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 compact, direct, and front-loads the primary operation before the important trust warning. Every sentence adds useful information without unnecessary 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?

The annotations cover the safety profile, and a read tool with clearly named required parameters is serviceable. However, with no output schema and no descriptions for country/language/date specifics, an agent may need additional information for correct calls.

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 provides no additional meaning for the five required parameters. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but there is no help for exact values, formats, or semantic constraints.

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 a read operation for related keywords in Bing Webmaster Tools. It is understandable and specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling keywords/stats tools like bing_keyword or bing_keyword_stats.

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, nor any mention of excluded use cases. The read-only nature is implied but not contrasted with similar sibling tools.

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