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.