bingcn

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format (title, link, summary, ID) but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, result freshness, pagination, or error conditions. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately concise - a single sentence that states the action and return format. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the action from the return details.

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 search tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral constraints, or provide enough context for the agent to use it effectively. The mention of return fields helps but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and parameter documentation.

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 0% description coverage, so parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions '指定的关键词' (specified keywords) which maps to the 'query' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'num_results' parameter at all. It adds minimal value beyond what's implied by the parameter names themselves.

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 tool's purpose: '使用必应搜索指定的关键词' (search specified keywords using Bing) and '返回搜索结果列表' (return search results list). It specifies the verb (search) and resource (Bing), but doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'fetch_webpage' which likely fetches specific webpages rather than performing searches.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'fetch_webpage' or explain when to search versus fetch specific content. There's no context about appropriate use cases or limitations.

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