kingdee_query_purchase_requisitions

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds that it returns JSON but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination limits, rate limiting, or data freshness. It is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

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, front-loads the purpose, and uses bullet points for examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core functionality, return format, and typical usage patterns. It does not explain pagination behavior or form_id specifically for this tool, but the output schema likely provides structure. Adequate for an agent with domain knowledge.

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 provides concrete examples for filter_string and field_keys, adding practical value beyond the schema descriptions. However, the schema already defines each parameter, so the added semantics are supplementary rather than essential.

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 a list of purchase requisitions (PUR_Requisition), explicitly naming the resource and providing context about its role in procurement. It distinguishes from siblings like kingdee_query_purchase_orders by focusing on requisitions.

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 examples of filter_string usage but does not discuss when to use this tool versus other query tools (e.g., purchase orders, sales orders). It lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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