bilibili_search

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

The description discloses the return envelope and gives concrete call examples, which is useful. However, with empty annotations, the top-level description itself does not mention potential Bilibili risk-control blocks, cookie requirements, or retry behavior; that information appears only in the schema's operation description.

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?

Compact and well-structured, with a front-loaded purpose, a clear return-format block, and two grounded examples. Every section earns its place.

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 three-parameter search tool with schema-documented parameters and an explicit return format, this is nearly complete. The main gap is the absence of sibling-tool routing guidance.

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 100% for all three parameters, so the schema already explains operation, keyword, and limit. The examples add practical usage context but no new parameter 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 clear verb and scope: 'Search Bilibili for videos or creators' and the operation enum distinguishes video vs user search. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like bilibili_explore, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Examples show supported operations and the user-search target is clear, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of sibling tools like bilibili_explore or bilibili_video.

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