AI 开票助手 · 电子发票开具

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that this is a formal submission with per-invoice billing, requires App Key, and produces invoice number and delivery info. It stops short of covering irreversibility, failure handling, or what happens if the draft is already confirmed, but the key side-effects are present.

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?

A single dense sentence opens with a step marker, then gives the required input, side-effect, prerequisite, and outcome. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to invoke correctly: required input, prerequisite, billing consequence, and generated artifacts. It does not describe error semantics or response format, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 already documents both parameters at 100% coverage. The description adds value by specifying that draft_id is exactly the value returned by invoice_create_draft, linking the two tools in the workflow. It does not elaborate on payer_email's delivery behavior, but the schema covers it.

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 states a specific action ('confirm issuing draft') on a specific resource (the draft created by invoice_create_draft), and explicitly frames it as 'Step 2' in a workflow. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling invoice_create_draft (which creates) and invoice_query (which reads).

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?

It tells the agent exactly when to use it: after invoice_create_draft, passing that tool's returned draft_id. It also lists a prerequisite (App Key) and cost model. It does not, however, explicitly state when to prefer invoice_query or invoice_create_draft instead.

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

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. It discloses several key behaviors: automatic validation of buyer tax ID format, tax rate legality, amount limits, auto-calculation of tax and total, free generation, and a 24-hour validity period. However, it omits what happens on validation failure, whether it creates a persistent entity, and the response format. These are notable gaps for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and step context, and contains no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core function and key behaviors, though it could be more explicit about workflow integration. It earns a high score for brevity and clarity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description must compensate for a moderate-complexity tool with 5 parameters. It misses critical information: how to reference the generated draft in subsequent steps (e.g., a draft ID), what happens on validation failure, and the response structure. Additionally, the claim '文字描述或结构化明细' conflicts with the schema which only accepts structured items, creating ambiguity. The description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the workflow and error handling.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides; it only mentions behavioral aspects like validation. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter meaning effectively.

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 it generates an invoice draft from order information, using a specific verb 'generate' and resource 'invoice draft'. It labels itself as 'Step 1' which implies a workflow position but does not explicitly name sibling tools like invoice_confirm_issue, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 phrase '第 1 步' provides clear context that this tool is the first step in the invoice workflow, implying use before confirmation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as 'use invoice_confirm_issue to issue the finalized invoice'. The guidance is implicit, not explicit.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb '查询' implies a read-only operation and the description adds the auth/scoping requirement (App Key). However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-mutating, nor does it describe pagination, rate limits, or the shape of the response.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and scope, and the second sentence lists the key filtering option. Every word 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 query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the resource, scope, auth requirement, and status filter. However, it does not mention the date-range parameters (even though they are in the schema), the return format, or any behavior about empty results, which leaves minor but relevant gaps.

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%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces the status enum with Chinese translations (draft/草稿, issued/已开具, all), but this is a minimal addition beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('查询' / query) and a specific resource ('发票草稿与开票记录' / invoice drafts and issuance records), scoped to the current App Key. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like invoice_create_draft and invoice_confirm_issue by being the query operation, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 the sibling tools. It mentions a prerequisite (App Key required) and lists available status filters, but it does not state exclusions, alternatives, or the context in which querying is appropriate over creating or issuing invoices.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It delivers meaningful behavioral traits: the operation is read-only (查看), requires no authentication (无需 App Key), and is free (免费). This is strong coverage for a zero-parameter info tool, though it omits response format and any pagination or rate-limit behavior.

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?

A single compact sentence conveys the full purpose with usage conditions in parentheses. The core action is front-loaded, and every clause carries information — no filler, no repetition of the tool name, no wasted words.

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 tool with zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete: it names exactly what information is returned (introduction, billing, contact) and the preconditions (free, no App Key). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, which sets the baseline at 4. There are no parameter semantics to add, and the description correctly avoids inventing any — nothing is lost by the description staying silent on parameters.

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 uses a specific verb (查看/view) and resource (服务介绍、计费方式与联系方式 = service introduction, billing, contact info), giving the tool a concrete scope. The domain clearly differs from the sibling invoice tools (invoice_confirm_issue, invoice_create_draft, invoice_query), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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 gives clear prerequisite guidance — 无需 App Key，免费 (no App Key required, free) — telling an agent this tool needs no authentication setup and has no cost. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it; the relationship to the invoice siblings is implied only by domain difference.

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