bing_striking_distance

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It accurately portrays a read-only operation (finding keywords) but does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or error handling beyond the purpose.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Find', and zero wasted words. Every term is necessary for understanding the tool's core function.

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 simple tool with one parameter, the description is complete enough to convey the primary function, but lacks details about return format or expected output. Could be more helpful with a brief note on what the tool returns.

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 a single parameter described as 'The URL of the site'. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameter, but the schema already sufficiently documents it. Baseline 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 action 'Find keywords ranking positions 8-15 on Bing (near page 1)', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like bing_seo_cannibalization or bing_get_top_pages by focusing on a specific rank range.

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 explicit usage guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The description implies use when searching for keywords near page 1, but lacks when-not-to-use or comparative context with siblings like seo_striking_distance without 'bing_' prefix.

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