qianji_query

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds genuinely useful behavior: IDs and monetary amounts are strings, returned objects carry a version used for later modify/delete, and the date upper bound (until) is exclusive. The exclusive-bound gotcha in particular is not derivable from the schema and prevents off-by-one range errors.

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?

Three short semicolon-separated clauses, purpose front-loaded, no filler. It is efficient and well-ordered, though the terseness edges into under-specification rather than optimal density.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not owed, but the tool's surface is large (nine kinds, eleven filter fields, zero schema descriptions) and the description covers almost none of the selection logic an agent needs. For a tool this broad, a query-language overview of kinds and filter applicability 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool is not parameter-light: one required enum with nine kind values plus a Filters object with eleven undocumented fields (limit, offset, since, until, status, keyword, book_id, object_id, account_id, category_id). The description clarifies only that IDs/amounts are strings and that dates are upper-exclusive; it never explains which filters apply to which kind, pagination semantics, or the status enum.

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 opens with a clear verb (查询/query) and names resources (原生对象、账目与任务), so the operation is identifiable. However, the resource naming is loose and does not map to the nine concrete kinds in the enum (books, accounts, categories, bills, installments, etc.), and no sibling is named, so an agent cannot tell it apart from qianji_preview or qianji_execute from the text alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the read-oriented siblings (qianji_preview) or the mutating one (qianji_execute). The only oblique guidance is 'version供修改/删除使用', which hints that returned version values feed modify/delete calls, but it never says which tool consumes them or under what conditions.

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