kingdee_audit_bills

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

Annotations indicate non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds context by specifying the state change and return structure (success=true, next_action=null). No contradiction with annotations.

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: two sentences and a returns line. It is front-loaded with the action and result, with no superfluous text.

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 tool's simplicity (auditing bills) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it could mention batch processing (multiple bill_ids) and any error conditions.

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 description does not describe the parameters. The input schema provides minimal descriptions in Chinese, but with schema description coverage at 0%, the tool description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema.

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 the verb (audit) and resource (bills), with a status transition (待审核 → 已审核). It distinguishes from sibling audit tools like kingdee_audit_production_orders and kingdee_unaudit_bills.

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 implies usage for auditing bills but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like kingdee_submit_bills or kingdee_create_and_audit. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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