bilibili_search_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions '优质库' but does not explain what this implies (e.g., curated, verified, or popular users). It also lacks disclosure on pagination behavior, result limits, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 very short (two sentences), front-loading the purpose and then parameter hints. No wasted words, but it could be more structured with clear sections for each parameter.

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 (1 required), no annotations, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the '优质库' concept, page_size meaning, or how pagination works. The output schema exists but is not described; the description should at least hint at result structure.

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 must compensate. It explains keyword (required) and order (follower/like, default relevance), but does not mention page, page_size, or their defaults. This leaves half the parameters undocumented, which is insufficient.

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 clearly states the tool searches for Bilibili UP主 (creators) in a '优质库' (quality library). The verb '搜索' (search) and resource 'UP主' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like bilibili_search_articles which search articles.

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 notes that keyword is required and explains the order parameter values (follower/like, default relevance). However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bilibili_get_account for specific user details, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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