submit_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions potential errors (BingWebmasterError) and quota limitations, but does not indicate if the operation is destructive, what the return value is (despite an output schema existing), or whether it's idempotent. This is insufficient for a submission tool.

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 clear but includes an 'Args' section that is partially redundant with the schema. It could be more concise and front-loaded, with the core action stated first. Overall adequate but not optimized.

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 and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value or the purpose of the 'self' parameter. The guidance about quota is helpful but insufficient for full understanding.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, leaving parameters like 'self' undocumented. The description explains site_url and url, but fails to clarify the purpose of 'self', which is required. This partial coverage omits important 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 states 'Submit a single URL for indexing,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like submit_url_batch (batch submission) and fetch_url (fetching), but could be more explicit about the indexing process.

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 advises calling get_url_submission_quota to check limits before submitting, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives.

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