kingdee_query_transfer_pending_detail

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 explicitly stating the return format (JSON list) and providing default field keys and filter examples. 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?

Description is fairly concise with bullet points for parameters and returns. It front-loads the purpose and table name. Could potentially be slightly shorter, but no superfluous information.

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 tool's complexity (multi-parameter query with filter, fields, pagination), the description covers the essential usage: table name, filter examples, recommended fields, and return format. An output schema exists, so return value details are covered. No notable gaps.

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 includes descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is moderate. The description adds usage examples for filter_string and recommends field_keys, adding some semantics beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the form_id parameter or the overall QueryInput structure beyond the given examples.

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?

Description clearly states the tool queries the '分步式调出未调入明细表' (step-by-step transfer out but not in detail), specifying the exact table and the business scenario. The verb '查询' (query) and resource are unambiguous, and the tool is distinct from many sibling query tools by its focus on pending transfer details.

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?

Provides practical filter_string examples (date range, material, warehouse) which help with parameter usage, but does not include guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kingdee_query_stock_bills or kingdee_query_transfer_apply. No explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use criteria are given.

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