bilibili-keywords-accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states the core behavior—keyword-based account search—but does not disclose result shape, match semantics, pagination behavior, or any limits. For a read-only search tool this is a moderate gap rather than a serious safety issue.

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 short sentence that front-loads the resource and action. There is slight redundancy between '账号搜索' and '搜索B站UP主', but overall it is efficient and free of 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 fully documented parameters, the description is minimally viable. However, without an output schema it does not hint at what the response contains, and it lacks usage differentiation from sibling Bilibili search tools.

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 100% for all three parameters, so the schema already documents keyword, page, and order. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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?

Description uses a clear verb ('搜索') and a specific resource ('B站UP主/账号'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. The account scope also distinguishes it from sibling tools like bilibili-keywords-search, which by name targets general keyword content 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?

The description implies use when searching for Bilibili accounts/UP主 by keyword, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast against related siblings such as bilibili-keywords-search or bilibili-portfolio-search. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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