bilibili_search

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the API is public and requires no authentication, which is valuable for assessing safety. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but '搜索' (search) implies it. Additional details like rate limits or error handling are absent, but the key behavioral trait is covered.

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 a single concise sentence that leads with the main purpose and immediately provides access context. Every word carries meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the platform (Bilibili), the resource (videos), and access requirements (public, no login). There are no significant gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema provides full 100% description coverage for both parameters (keyword and limit), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter meaning.

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 clearly states the tool searches Bilibili videos using the specific verb '搜索' and resource 'B站视频', which unambiguously identifies its function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like douyin_search or weibo_search.

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?

It provides clear context that this is a public HTTP API requiring no login or browser, which implies it is suitable for public, unauthenticated searches. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like bilibili_popular, only implying the use case via the search keyword.

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