search_videos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the basic action without any details on traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, or error handling. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with a single sentence, 'Search for videos on Bilibili', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 complexity of a search tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects like pagination or error cases. This leaves critical gaps for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the parameters (keyword, page, count) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters, such as what 'keyword' should contain, how 'page' and 'count' affect pagination, or their default values. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Search for videos on Bilibili' clearly states the action (search) and resource (videos on Bilibili), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of search it performs (e.g., keyword-based, relevance ranking) and doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'get_video_info', which might retrieve specific videos rather than search.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like searching by keyword, pagination needs, or how it differs from sibling tools such as 'get_user_info' or 'get_video_info'. Without this context, users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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