kingdee_query_partners

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by stating the return format is JSON with specific fields (e.g., encoding, name). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so safety is clear. The description does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context.

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 (5 lines) and includes essential information: purpose, partner_type values, and return format. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main action. 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 that an output schema exists (not shown) and annotations cover safety and idempotency, the description is fairly complete. It mentions return fields and includes the two partner types. However, it could mention pagination parameters (start_row, limit) and that filter_string allows filtering, but these are in the schema. Overall, it adequately covers core functionality.

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, including partner_type and field_keys. The description only reiterates partner_type values and does not add new information for other parameters. With high schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not improve it.

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 customer (BD_Customer) or supplier (BD_Supplier) basic data, specifying the two partner types and listing return fields (code, name, short name, contact, phone). This distinguishes it from other query tools among siblings, such as kingdee_query_materials or kingdee_query_bills, making the purpose specific.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other query tools for different entities (e.g., kingdee_query_materials, kingdee_query_bills). It does not mention prerequisites, context of use, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or not.

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