kingdee_query_expense_reimburse

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 that it returns a JSON list but does not elaborate on other behaviors like authorization or pagination limits. 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: one sentence plus a return type note. Every word serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the core function. No unnecessary 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 presence of a detailed input schema and output schema (implied by context), the description covers the essential purpose and filtering. It does not mention pagination details or default fields, but the schema compensates. Overall, it is sufficiently 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 tool description does not describe any parameters (0% coverage), but the input schema provides detailed descriptions for each property (e.g., form_id, filter_string). The schema already conveys parameter semantics, so the description adds no extra value.

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 that the tool queries expense reimbursement documents ('查询费用报销单') and mentions filtering capabilities. Among siblings, it is distinct as it targets expense reimbursement specifically.

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 indicates the tool is for querying expense reimbursement documents with filtering, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. It is adequate but lacks exclusionary context.

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