bilibili_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond that: the result carries title/uploader/duration/link and nothing is persisted, which resolves the main ambiguity of a search tool against a save workflow. It says nothing about pagination behavior or result volume, hence not a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the returned fields and the non-persistence caveat front-loaded. Nothing is redundant with the name or the annotations.

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?

Return fields are described, which is necessary given there is no output schema, and the non-persistence note closes the biggest workflow gap. However, with three parameters at 0% schema coverage, an agent still has no guidance on paging through results or caps, so the definition is adequate but incomplete for a paginated search tool.

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 has to carry parameter meaning, and it explains nothing about page or limit — the bounds (page ≤ 50, limit ≤ 20) exist only as bare constraints with no stated semantics. Only 'keyword' is implied by the word 搜索, leaving two of three parameters undocumented on both sides.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (搜索 B 站视频) and enumerates what comes back (标题、UP 主、时长、链接). It does not name a sibling, though the clause '搜索候选不会自动保存' implicitly points at the save workflow; the tool is still distinguishable from bilibili_save_videos and bilibili_read_video.

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 statement that search candidates are not auto-saved implies an agent must call bilibili_save_videos to persist anything, but that alternative is never named and no conditions for choosing this over bilibili_get_video are given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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