kingdee_query_asset_card

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the kind of data queried and providing operational hints (filter examples, field keys). No contradictions.

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 concise and front-loaded with purpose. It includes extra helpful info (recommended field keys) without being verbose. Minor lack of structure (e.g., no sections) but still efficient.

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 existence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and important hints. It does not explain return values (handled by output schema) or sorting/pagination (in input schema). Fairly complete for a query 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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters. The description adds specific examples for filter_string and field_keys relevant to asset cards, but does not cover all parameters. Schema coverage from description is partial; baseline 3 is appropriate since schema handles the rest.

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 tool queries asset cards (FA_FAGet or sub-documents) and explains what an asset card contains (original value, depreciation, net value, status). It provides specific filter and field key examples, distinguishing it from sibling tools like kingdee_query_asset_depreciation or kingdee_query_asset_transfer.

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 examples for filter_string and field_keys but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or any exclusions. Usage is implied through examples, but without explicit guidance.

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