bing_keywords_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, what 'historical' means in terms of time range, or the format of the returned stats. The description is insufficiently transparent.

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, consisting of a single sentence. While it is not verbose, it could include more context without sacrificing conciseness. It earns a score of 4 for being appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the returned historical stats include, any limitations (e.g., date ranges), or how the output structure looks. More context is needed for the agent to use it effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents each parameter (q, country, language) adequately. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, making this score 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 action 'Get' and the resource 'historical stats for a keyword in Bing'. It is specific enough to convey the tool's basic function, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like bing_rank_traffic_stats or bing_related_keywords, which also deal with keyword stats.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bing_rank_traffic_stats or bing_related_keywords. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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