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

The description discloses valuable async behavior: wait up to 240 seconds, and if incomplete return job_id plus a next-step query action. This goes beyond the annotations, which only signal non-readonly, non-idempotent behavior. It could be richer by naming the query tool or describing success responses, but the output schema covers some of that.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the core action, then adds the per-part scope and the timeout/job_id behavior. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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 only one parameter, a well-detailed input schema, an output schema, and helpful annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: input types, per-part behavior, wait time, and fallback response with job_id. The 'next query action' is vague, but the sibling bilibili_get_video_speech_text_job makes the intended follow-up identifiable.

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% and the video_url parameter description already explains accepted URL forms, the p parameter behavior, and exclusions. The tool description largely restates rather than adds to this, so it does not need to compensate; 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 uses a specific verb ('submit') and resource ('speech-to-text task'), and clearly scopes the input to Bilibili video links, short links, or share text. It also adds the 'one sub-P per call' constraint, which distinguishes it from related submit/query siblings like bilibili_submit_video_speech_text_by_bvid.

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 gives clear input context: use URL/short-link/share-text, do not pass BV IDs or profile links, and one sub-P is processed at a time. It does not explicitly name the by-BV sibling as the alternative or name the follow-up query tool, so it falls short of fully explicit when-not/alternatives guidance.

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