bili_account_action_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: read-only, no dispatch or retry side effects, and the important caveat that a receipt is not verified account state so it should not be treated as confirmation. It stops short of covering auth requirements, error behavior for unknown action_id, or lifetime of the receipt.

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?

Two short clauses with no filler, and the read-only nature is front-loaded. It is arguably over-compressed given the missing context, but the structure is clean and every sentence carries signal.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be explained. However, for a one-param lookup among three similar *_action_status siblings, the description omits action_id provenance, the scope of 'public-action', and how this differs from the comment/DM variants.

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 0% and the single action_id parameter is completely undocumented. The description says nothing about where action_id comes from, its format, or whether it is reusable, so it fails to compensate for the empty 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?

It states a read of a 'durable public-action receipt/state', which gives a verb and a resource, but 'public-action' is unexplained jargon. Against siblings like bili_comment_action_status and bili_dm_action_status the description gives no clue which action domain this covers, so an agent cannot confidently distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

'never dispatches or retries' implicitly tells the agent this is a polling/lookup call rather than a trigger, which is useful. But there is no stated when-to-use condition, no prerequisite (e.g. that action_id must come from a prior action call), and no routing to the sibling status tools.

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