bing_sites_health

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

Without annotations, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It calls the action a 'comprehensive health check' but does not specify whether it is read-only, what checks are performed, or the nature of the output. This vagueness leaves critical behavioral context unknown.

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, concise sentence with no extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose.

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 simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose but fails to describe the return value (e.g., a health report or score). This gap reduces completeness for an AI agent invoking the tool.

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 description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that omitting the optional 'siteUrl' parameter checks all verified sites. This complements the schema's parameter description (100% coverage) with usage semantics.

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 identifies the tool's action ('run a comprehensive health check'), the resource ('verified Bing sites'), and scope ('one or all'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'sites_health_check' and 'traffic_health_check' by specifying Bing-specific sites.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'sites_health_check', 'diagnostics', 'traffic_health_check'). It lacks criteria for choosing this tool over others.

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