bilibili-search-download

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose the core behavior: input keyword, search all Bilibili videos, sort by views/likes/time, and automatically batch-retrieve HD download links. However, it does not clarify whether this returns link lists only, whether actual downloads occur, or any limitations or side effects, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 front-loaded with the tool's core purpose, followed by use-case guidance and trigger words. The trigger word list is somewhat repetitive but serves a clear intent-detection purpose, so the length is justified.

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 description explains enough about expected behavior and return intent: it will search videos and get HD download links. Given the moderate complexity of five simple parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete, though it could add more detail about pagination behavior or what the downloaded-link output looks like.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by explaining that the order parameter supports sorting by play count, likes, and time, which the schema's 'day-如 play' placeholder does not fully convey. It also reinforces that keyword is the primary required input, adding slight value beyond the schema.

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 identifies a specific action and resource: searching Bilibili's full site by keyword and batch-retrieving HD download links. It is distinct from video-downloader siblings by emphasizing keyword-based search and batch behavior, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast itself with bilibili-video-downloader.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when the user needs to search Bilibili videos, download Bilibili content, or collect Bilibili material, and it provides trigger words for intent detection. It does not describe exclusions or when a different sibling tool would be more appropriate, so it falls one point short of full guidance.

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