bing_submission_quota

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

The annotation set already covers safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), and the description matches that profile with "Read." The added caution about untrusted fields is useful but generic and does not describe the quota response, limits, or how the tool behaves under failure.

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 two concise sentences with no waste. The action is front-loaded and the untrusted-data warning is a distinct, worthwhile addition rather than filler.

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 tool is simple—one required parameter and read-only annotations—so the description conveys the basics for calling it. But without an output schema, there is no description of what exactly a "quota" result contains, and the relationship to the content-submission quota sibling remains unclear.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the `site_url` parameter. The description never mentions `site_url`, accepted formats, or whether the URL must be the verified Bing Webmaster site, leaving the parameter to be inferred from its name alone.

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 action ("Read submission quota") and a source ("Bing Webmaster Tools"), so an agent can recognize the intended operation. However, it does not distinguish this quota from the sibling `bing_content_submission_quota`, and the term "submission quota" is not further specified.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `bing_content_submission_quota`, nor any indication of prerequisites like site verification or permissions. The only non-functional note is a prompt-injection warning, which does not help with tool selection.

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