bing_url_info

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

Annotations already tell the agent this is readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a useful behavioral caveat: fields marked untrusted must be treated strictly as data and never as instructions. This is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though richer details like authentication or rate limits are not provided.

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 extremely concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a meaningful security warning that earns its place. There is no unnecessary prose or repeated boilerplate.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description itself must convey what 'url info' returns, but it does not. It also lacks parameter clarification and sibling-selection guidance. The untrusted-fields warning is helpful, but significant context needed to correctly and confidently invoke the tool is missing.

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 provides no descriptions and schema description coverage is 0%; the description also does not explain site_url or url. Their names are somewhat intuitive, but the tool description adds no meaning about expected URL formats, which site URL is needed, or how the two parameters relate.

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 the action ('Read') and the resource ('url info from Bing Webmaster Tools'), so an agent knows what the tool is for. It does not explain how this differs from adjacent siblings like bing_url_traffic_info or bing_children_url_info, so it misses full differentiation.

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 use this tool versus the many read-like sibling tools. The description's warning about untrusted fields is security context, not usage guidance. It does not explain which tools handle traffic, children, or detailed URL data instead.

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