bilibili_article_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The only added context is that the data is '公开' (public), which hints at no-auth visibility, but nothing is said about what happens with invalid or private article ids or whether the article body is included.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with a bracketed category tag and zero filler. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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 one-parameter read with rich annotations and no output schema, the minimum needed to call it is present (what it returns, roughly). However, the meaning of the id and any hint about the returned fields are missing, leaving it just barely adequate.

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% for the single required parameter 'id'. The description never clarifies that this id is the column article id (as opposed to a video id, dynamic id, or user id), which is exactly the disambiguation an agent needs given the many id-taking siblings.

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 pairs a specific verb (读取) with a specific resource (专栏文章) and scope (公开信息), so an agent can distinguish it from bilibili_video_info or bilibili_user_info without opening the schema. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so it lands at a clear-but-not-differentiating 4.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the phrase '公开信息' – the description itself provides no routing guidance.

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