kingdee_view_bill

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds valuable context beyond: the data size (up to 100k characters) and how summary mode truncates related fields to Id/Number/Name. This helps the agent understand the output size and behavior. No contradictions 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 concise, front-loading the main purpose and then explaining modes. Every sentence adds value: the core action, mode details with size comparisons, return type. No unnecessary words.

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 (read-only view with two modes) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description is complete. It explains when to use each mode, the return type, and size implications. No gaps remain for an agent to effectively invoke this 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 input schema descriptions already explain form_id, bill_id, and mode. The description reinforces mode's purpose and adds practical context (size reduction, use case). Although schema coverage is high, the description adds value by explaining the summary mode's suitability for creating new bills, which is not in the schema.

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's purpose: retrieving complete bill details by the internal code FID, including all entry fields. It specifies the resource (bill), action (view details), and key identifier. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kingdee_query_bills (which lists bills) and kingdee_view_production_order.

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 explains when to use summary mode (referencing old bills) vs full mode (original JSON), including size implications. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the context of siblings and required parameters (form_id, bill_id) implies it is for viewing a specific bill's details. Some explicit guidance on prerequisites would improve clarity.

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