bing_site_roles

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds a caution about treating untrusted fields as data, which is useful in principle but vague since no fields are actually marked 'untrusted' in the schema.

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: one sentence states the purpose and one adds a security caution. There is minimal padding, though the caution about 'untrusted' fields could be more directly tied to the actual response shape.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description should compensate, but it only names the entity. It omits what roles look like, how subdomain inclusion affects results, and any permission or return-value context, making the tool hard to invoke correctly without external guesses.

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 text does not explain either parameter. It does not state what site_url should look like or what include_all_subdomains controls, leaving the agent without enough information to construct a correct call confidently.

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 specific action ('Read') and resource ('site roles from Bing Webmaster Tools'). This differentiates it from sibling mutation tools like bing_plan_add_site_roles and bing_plan_remove_site_role.

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 does not explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It does not mention that modifications to site roles should use the bing_plan_* siblings, leaving the agent to infer routing from the tool name only.

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