bing_get_top_queries

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

No behavioral traits beyond the tool's purpose are disclosed. The description does not mention whether it is read-only, performance implications, or any constraints. Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden but fails to add relevant context.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. The alias information is necessary context. No unnecessary words.

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 tool that returns 'top queries,' the description lacks details about the output format, ordering, or limitations. Given no output schema, more context is expected to fully define the tool's behavior.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 it gets top queries for a site, with a specific verb and resource. However, it also mentions being an alias for bing_analytics_query, which introduces some ambiguity about its exact scope compared to the general tool.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus its sibling bing_analytics_query or other analytics tools. The alias hint is present but not sufficient for decision-making.

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