bing_analytics_detect_anomalies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, what constitutes an anomaly, or any side effects. The agent is left uninformed about the tool's safety profile.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that communicates the core purpose efficiently. No redundant words or phrases.

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 description is minimal and does not explain return values, output format, or expected behavior. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the agent lacks critical context needed to interpret the tool's results correctly.

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 input schema already provides descriptive text for all three parameters (siteUrl, days, threshold), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Detect' and resource 'performance anomalies in Bing traffic'. It is specific and understandable, but does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'analytics_anomalies' which has a similar purpose based on name.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it. Given many sibling analytics tools, this omission increases risk of incorrect tool selection.

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