kingdee_query_cost_centers

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 behavioral context by showing the response is JSON-formatted and providing filter examples. It does not contradict annotations and enhances understanding of expected 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?

The description is brief and well-structured with bullet points for key usage hints. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 (context signal), so the description does not need to detail return values. However, it only states 'JSON format' without specifying common fields or structure. For a query tool, more detail on expected output fields would improve completeness.

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 adds meaning for filter_string and field_keys with concrete examples, but does not cover other parameters like form_id, order_string, start_row, limit. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 queries cost center basic data with a specific form ID (CB_CostCenter). The tool name and title are descriptive. Among many sibling query tools, this one is distinctly for cost centers, making purpose clear and unambiguous.

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 example filter strings and recommended field_keys, which gives practical usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other cost-related queries) or any conditions where it should not be used.

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