搜索

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: no mention of pagination behavior, result caps, rate limits, or what a search returns. The second sentence is provenance trivia (parity with the browser extension UI) rather than operational context.

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?

Two short sentences with the capability stated first, no filler or repetition. The provenance sentence about Bilibili-Evolved is of marginal value to an agent, keeping it just below a 5.

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 read-only, open-world search with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers what can be searched but omits result shape, pagination limits, and sort interaction with `type`. An agent could invoke it, but would likely need a probe call to learn how results come back.

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 only 50% — `type` and `order` are documented in the schema, while `keyword` and especially `page` are not. The description's type enumeration largely restates the existing enum description and says nothing about pagination or sort semantics, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented half.

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?

States a specific verb (搜索) plus the exact resource domains (视频、用户、番剧、影视、直播间、专栏), which matches the `type` enum and makes the tool's scope unmistakable. It does not explicitly contrast itself with lookups like bili_user or bili_video_info, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 mapping to Bilibili-Evolved's 搜索栏 / Launch Bar implies this is the keyword-entry search entry point, which hints at when to reach for it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as bili_hot for trending or bili_resolve for ID/URL resolution.

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