bing_url_submit

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

With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or idempotency. The bare description 'submit' does not inform the agent of any side effects or constraints.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. While concise, it could be slightly expanded to include a usage hint without becoming overly verbose. The minimal structure is appropriate for a simple tool but misses an opportunity to improve completeness.

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 low complexity and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify return values (e.g., success indication, error handling) or prerequisites, which are important for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional information.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional value beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which already clearly define 'siteUrl' and 'url'.

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?

Description clearly states the action (submit), resource (a single URL), and target (Bing for indexing). It effectively differentiates from sibling 'bing_url_submit_batch' by specifying 'single URL', making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for submitting a single URL, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bing_url_submit_batch' or 'bing_url_submission_quota'. No exclusions or context for when to avoid it are provided.

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