bilibili_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only states that the tool returns search results, without mentioning rate limits, authentication, sorting, or error handling. The only extra detail is that page_num starts from 1, which is minimal.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line summary, an Args list, and a Returns line. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple search tool, the description covers the main parameters but lacks usage guidance and specific return structure. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description could be more complete (e.g., examples, return format). It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by providing Chinese semantic labels for all parameters: keyword (搜索关键词), search_type (搜索类型), page_num (页码，从1开始), page_size (每页数量). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema titles, especially the 'starts from 1' note and the categories listed in the opening line.

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 starts with '统一搜索' (unified search) and lists the content types (video, user, article, live), clearly indicating this is a cross-type search tool. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific resources (e.g., bilibili_user_get_info, bilibili_video_get_info). However, it could be more explicit about the search action, though '统一搜索' implies it.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bilibili_get_hot or bilibili_get_rank. It simply defines parameters and return value, with no mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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