bilibili-keywords-search

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden of explaining behavior. It only says it searches Bilibili videos; it does not disclose pagination behavior, sort/publishTime semantics, result format, rate limits, or whether it is a read-only operation. This is minimal for a search tool with no annotation support.

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 very short and front-loaded, containing only one sentence. It is efficient, though slightly redundant ('内容搜索' followed by '搜索B站视频'), and could have used the space to mention key parameters or alternatives.

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?

With four parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a large sibling set containing multiple Bilibili search tools, the description is under-specified. It does not explain how sortType/publishTime affect results, what the return data looks like, or how this tool differs from bilibili-search-download and bilibili-keywords-accounts.

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%, so basic meanings of keyword, page, sortType, and publishTime are already documented. The description adds no value beyond confirming keyword-based search and does not explain sortType choices or publishTime formats, but the high schema coverage keeps this at baseline.

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 action ('搜索') and resource ('B站视频'), and clarifies it is keyword-driven. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like bilibili-search-download or bilibili-keywords-accounts, so it distinguishes the core operation but not the full sibling set.

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 usage context is implied: an agent can infer this tool is for searching Bilibili videos by keyword. However, no explicit guidance is given for when to prefer this over bilibili-search-download, bilibili-keywords-accounts, or bilibili-portfolio-search, and no alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned.

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