get_query_parameters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return type (List[QueryParameter]) and a possible exception (BingWebMasterError). However, it does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a simple read operation this is acceptable, but more detail would improve transparency.

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 concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose and an Args section. It is not verbose and every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured with a Returns section (though output schema exists).

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 simple nature of the tool (2 parameters, returns a list) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, the omission of the 'self' parameter and lack of guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings leaves gaps.

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 only explains the 'site_url' parameter as 'The URL of the site'. The 'self' parameter is not mentioned at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining both parameters, but it fails to do so.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get a list of URL normalization parameters for a site.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('URL normalization parameters'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_query_parameter and remove_query_parameter.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (retrieve existing URL parameters for normalization), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The sibling tool names imply alternatives, but the description could be more direct.

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