Get authorized Bilibili user

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

Annotations already declare the operation as readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the required USER_INFO scope and the exact fields returned. This exceeds the baseline for annotation-covered safety but lacks details on error behavior or rate limits, so not a 5.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the key output fields. Every word carries meaning and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope requirement, and returns. It could mention behavior on missing/invalid tokens or explicitly reference the response_format option, but these are minor gaps, so it's one step above the minimum viable.

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 single optional parameter, response_format, has a description in the schema that fully covers its meaning (markdown for people, json for programs). Since schema coverage is 100%, the tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, consistent with the baseline of 3.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('authorized Bilibili user'), listing the exact data returned (nickname, avatar URL, app-scoped OpenID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_stats, which focus on statistics rather than identity.

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 clear context by specifying the tool retrieves the user who authorized the configured access token and requires USER_INFO scope, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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