bing_crawl_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for revealing behavioral traits. The description only says 'Get crawl issues' without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, if it requires specific permissions, or if there are rate limits. It does not disclose the return format, pagination, or any side effects, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 (9 words, one sentence), but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. While it is front-loaded and efficient, it is too sparse to be fully informative. A slightly longer description with more context would be appropriate.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (crawl issues could involve multiple types, dates, and filtering) and the lack of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what constitutes a 'crawl issue,' whether there are any prerequisites (e.g., site verified), or how results are structured. The description feels incomplete for making an informed invocation.

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 has only one parameter ('siteUrl') with a clear description, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. It does not enhance understanding of the parameter's format or constraints.

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 gets crawl issues for a site from Bing Webmaster Tools. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('crawl issues'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'bing_crawl_stats' (which likely provides aggregate statistics) and 'diagnostics' (a broader tool). However, it does not specify the type of crawl issues (e.g., errors, warnings), which slightly reduces clarity.

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. Given the large number of sibling tools (e.g., 'bing_crawl_stats', 'diagnostics', 'seo_recommendations'), the absence of usage context or when-not-to-use instructions makes it harder for an AI agent to select the correct tool.

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