Parse Bilibili URL or identifier

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the operation is local, does not contact Bilibili, and does not resolve b23.tv redirects. This meaningfully supplements the annotation data.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no fluff. Every clause adds information: the input type, the output, the local processing, and the non-resolving behavior.

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 parsing tool with no output schema, the description is complete in explaining inputs, outputs, and limitations. It could mention error handling for invalid identifiers, but the core use case and boundary conditions are clearly covered, making it adequate for an AI agent.

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 (input and response_format) described in the schema. The tool description adds context about identifier types and output contents but does not provide additional per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Parse' with the resource 'Bilibili BV/av/ep/ss identifier or HTTPS URL' and clearly states the outputs (resource type, id, canonical URL). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing local parsing without contacting Bilibili, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 when to use this tool: for parsing identifiers or URLs locally, and explicitly mentions a non-goal ('does not contact Bilibili or resolve b23.tv redirects'). It does not name alternative sibling tools directly, but the context makes the boundary clear enough for selection.

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