bili_user_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; 'Read' and 'public profile' do establish that this is a non-mutating access to public data. However, the trailing sentence 'Agent identity remains unverified' is cryptic and gives no actionable context about auth, rate limits, or what happens on an invalid/private UID.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the purpose leads, followed by the parameter disambiguation. The final clause about agent identity is short but of dubious value, slightly diluting an otherwise tight sentence.

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 values need not be explained, and a single-parameter read-only tool needs little. Still, an agent is left without the source of the UID and without any note on behavior for private or nonexistent users, which the annotation-free definition should supply.

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 0% and the single 'uid' parameter has no description, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning by stating the value is a UID string and explicitly distinguishing it from a comment rpid, but it never says where to obtain the UID (e.g., from bili_comments).

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?

Specific verb plus resource: 'Read a commenter's public profile/signature'. That separates it from the uid-taking siblings bili_user_videos and bili_user_dynamics, which return content rather than profile data. It stops short of naming those siblings directly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

'Read a commenter's public profile' implies the trigger (you have a commenter's UID and want their profile), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. The only real guidance is the warning not to pass a comment rpid, which is a parameter-usage rule rather than tool-selection guidance.

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