bilibili_vertical_home

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'stable server-rendered editorial sections' and explicitly excludes rotating feeds, pagination, account state, and streaming URLs. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it doesn't describe response format or error behavior.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what it does, what it returns, and what it excludes. The allowed values are front-loaded and the exclusions are concise. No wasted words.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers the category values, the nature of the response (stable server-rendered editorial sections), and exclusions. It could mention whether the response is a list or object, but the description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 single parameter 'category' is fully described in the schema. The description adds the allowed values ('documentary, movie, tv, variety') and clarifies that these are verticals, reinforcing the schema. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds a bit of extra clarity by enumerating the values in prose.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Bilibili documentary, movie, TV, or variety home sections'), and explicitly names the allowed category values. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bilibili_anime_home and bilibili_guochuang_home by scoping to these four verticals.

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 clearly states what the tool returns and what it excludes ('Rotating feeds, pagination, account state, and streaming URLs are excluded'), which helps an agent know when not to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for those excluded cases, but the exclusions are clear enough to guide selection.

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