search_bilibili_creators

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses that display names are fuzzy and non-unique, that each candidate is un-resolved, that the tool neither auto-selects nor scrapes, and it adds a critical security warning that returned Bilibili text is untrusted data and must never be executed as instructions — a prompt-injection defense. The auth requirement is also disclosed.

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 front-loaded with purpose and every sentence earns its place: candidate semantics, non-fetching behavior, auth prerequisite, and the security warning. The security warning is repeated bilingually for emphasis, which is justified given its importance, though this slightly lengthens the text.

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?

The tool has an output schema and both parameters fully documented in the schema. The description covers purpose, candidate semantics, non-fetching scope, auth requirements, and a security warning — everything an agent needs to call it correctly. Minor absence: no explicit failure-mode description (e.g., behavior when credentials are absent), but the prerequisite is clearly stated.

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%: both query and limit carry descriptions in the schema (trim requirement, 100-char max, default 5 / max 10). The description adds general candidate-semantics context (stable mid, candidates-only) but does not add meaningfully beyond the schema for the parameters themselves, keeping the baseline of 3 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 states a specific verb + resource ('按关键词搜索 Bilibili 创作者（UP 主）'), the return value (platform-ordered Creator candidates with stable numeric mid), and the count cap of 10. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it does not fetch candidate content (differentiating from get_bilibili_creator_content) and by the operator/video implicit contrast with search_bilibili_videos.

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 context: it requires a configured and logged-in Bilibili Cookie, and explicitly directs the agent to get_credential_setup_instructions for setup help. It also states negative scope (does not auto-select a Creator or fetch content). It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead in other circumstances, but the credential routing and scope exclusion are solid guidance.

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