bilibili_search_articles

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey all behavioral traits. It specifies parameter constraints (page start, page_size defaults, order options) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is required, rate limits, pagination limits beyond page_size, or what happens on empty results. Significant behavioral gaps remain.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second structures parameter details in a clear list format. Every sentence adds value, keeping the description efficient and scannable.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral transparency (auth, read-only, rate limits) and usage guidance. It is adequate for basic use but leaves gaps that could affect correct invocation in complex scenarios.

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%, so the description fully carries the parameter explanation. It clarifies keyword as required, page starting from 1, page_size default 10 and max 50, and enumerates allowed order values (time, play, like, comment, favorite). This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's minimal type definitions.

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 specifies the verb '搜索' (search) and the resource 'B站视频' (Bilibili videos) with a qualifier '优质库' (high-quality library), clearly differentiating from sibling tools like 'bilibili_search_users' and 'bilibili_get_work'. The purpose is distinct and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bilibili_search_users, douyin_search_articles). The usage context is implied by the tool name and resource description, but there are no exclusions or situational recommendations, resulting in moderate guidance.

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