bing_site_moves

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

The annotations already mark this operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. It does add a useful behavioral caution: fields marked untrusted should be treated as data only, not as instructions. This is valuable behavioral context beyond 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 only two sentences long. The first sentence states the tool's purpose directly, and the second sentence adds a security-conscious handling note, earning its place because it is actionable for an LLM.

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 simple read-only tool with a single required parameter, the description is minimally viable. However, the absence of an output schema means the agent receives little understanding of the response shape, pagination, or field semantics. The description does not say that the response is a list, whether it is paginated, or what a 'site move' record looks like.

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 only one parameter, site_url, and its description coverage is 0%, so the description should have explained what should be passed and why. It does not explain URL format, ownership requirements, or how the site_url relates to the site move data. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name itself.

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 says exactly what the tool does: it reads site moves from Bing Webmaster Tools. The clear read-vs-write distinction is reinforced by the sibling tool bing_plan_submit_site_move, which is explicitly the submission variant. The use of the word 'read' makes the resource and action unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of another, which is a real gap because a sibling write tool exists. It also omits any prerequisite like whether the site must already be added or verified before reading its moves. A simple 'Use this to inspect submitted site moves, not to submit or change them' would have made this effective.

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