bilibili_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: output is a paginated raw structure and titles may contain highlight HTML, which warns the agent about return-format quirks it would otherwise not expect.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler: capability first, return characteristics second. Efficient, though the second clause packs two distinct facts (pagination structure and HTML-in-titles) into one line.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should clarify the multi-mode search_type behavior and pagination semantics. It hints at paginated raw output but says nothing about the parameters an agent must set to search different resource types, leaving a substantial gap.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the full documentation burden, yet it names no parameters. It never explains search_type's enum categories (video/user/live/article/media), the order options, tids, duration, or page limits, leaving the agent to guess from bare enum names.

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?

States a specific verb (搜索/search) and enumerates the resource types covered: videos, UP主, live rooms, articles, and film/TV. This clearly distinguishes it from retrieval tools like bilibili_video_info, though it does not explicitly name the closest sibling bilibili_search_hot to differentiate hot-search behavior.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bilibili_search_hot or the specific info tools. The '[发现]' discovery tag implies exploratory use, but there is no stated condition, prerequisite, or exclusion to route the agent among the many sibling tools.

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