Get statistics for an authorized user's Bilibili video

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explicitly requires ARC_DATA scope, which is an authorization prerequisite, and it clarifies the resource scope (owned/co-authored videos). This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not describe error behaviors or response format.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and key metrics. It avoids redundancy with the annotations and schema, containing only the essential additional context (auth scope and ownership constraint).

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 read-only statistics tool with robust schema (100% parameter coverage) and annotations declaring safety and idempotency, the description completes the picture by listing the returned metrics, the ownership requirement, and the auth scope. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the description's explicit enumeration of what the stats include.

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%, with both parameters (resource_id and response_format) fully described in the schema, including pattern, enum, and defaults. The tool description adds only contextual scope (owned/co-authored) and the auth requirement, not parameter-specific semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('statistics for a video'), enumerates the exact metrics (views, likes, coins, favorites, replies, danmaku, shares), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like bilibili_get_video and bilibili_get_user_stats by specifying it's for videos owned or co-authored by the authorized user.

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: it is for retrieving statistics for the authorized user's own or co-authored videos, and it mentions the required ARC_DATA scope. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the scope restriction and the sibling tool list imply appropriate usage.

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