bilibili_user_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new fact: the WBI signature is attached automatically, which tells the agent it need not supply auth signing. It omits whether login/credentials are required for this endpoint and whether any fields are privacy-gated.

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?

One short front-loaded clause with no filler. Brevity is appropriate, though at this length it is arguably under-specified rather than merely tight.

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?

No output schema, so the description should hint at what the profile contains (name, avatar, level, signature, follower counts) and whether authentication affects results. Given the low complexity and existing annotations, the omission is a gap but not fatal.

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 parameter mid, and the description only implies it identifies the target UP主 without stating that it is the numeric Bilibili user ID, its format, or where to obtain it. The schema-only enforcement (integer, minimum 1) does not convey semantics.

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 and resource: read a UP主's public profile (读取UP主公开资料). An agent can distinguish it from the video/comment/live siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with the close neighbor bilibili_user_relation_stats.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not, or prerequisite guidance. The nearby bilibili_user_relation_stats and bilibili_user_videos tools are never mentioned, so the agent must infer that this returns identity/profile data rather than relations or uploads.

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