bilibili_account

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

With empty annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose key behavior: status is always available, 'following'/'favorites' are auth-gated and return an honest requires_login state instead of failing opaquely. It also states the return envelope. It stops short of side-effect or rate-limit detail, but for account lookup operations this is sufficient.

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 compact and organized: one-line summary, rationale, return format, and examples. The rationale is slightly meta but earns its place by justifying the operation-discriminator design; no filler sentences are present.

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?

It covers the return shape, examples, and per-operation auth behavior, which is enough to call the tool correctly in most cases. The main gap is the mid parameter's exact effect for the status operation, and the data fields inside each operation's response are not detailed beyond the generic output schema.

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 coverage is 100% and the operation parameter already has a detailed description covering enum semantics and the login caveat; the tool description adds useful examples but not much new parameter meaning. The mid parameter remains somewhat under-explained beyond 'only for status'.

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 opening line names the resource ('account-tier') and lists the three concrete operations: tier status, following feed, favorites. It is distinct from sibling bilibili_explore/search/video tools, though it lacks a crisp verb like 'gets' or 'lists' in the summary line.

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 operation descriptions give clear per-operation guidance: status works always, while following and favorites require a logged-in +86 account and otherwise return a requires_login state. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives statement, so the tool relies on the account domain being self-evident.

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