query_metadata

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the burden. It uses '查询' (query) which implies a read-only operation, and mentions it is for metadata retrieval, so the non-destructive nature is reasonably implicit. However, it does not explicitly state safety, permissions, or error behavior, but the simplicity of the operation and the presence of an output schema mitigate this.

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 short and focused, with a clear purpose statement, a usage rationale, and a labeled Args section with an example. No unnecessary filler. It is slightly verbose due to the paragraph format, but every sentence contributes value.

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 tool is simple (1 parameter, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so the description need not detail return values. It covers purpose, typical use cases, and parameter semantics. It does not mention edge cases or prerequisites, but these are not essential for such a straightforward metadata query.

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 provides only a type and no description for form_id (0% schema coverage). The description compensates by defining form_id as '表单ID' and providing concrete examples (e.g., SUB_ReqChange, SAL_SaleOrder), adding meaningful guidance beyond the schema. It could go further by explaining how to discover other form IDs, but the examples are valuable.

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 function: '查询金蝶云星空表单的元数据（字段结构信息）' (query metadata/field structure of Kingdee Cloud Star forms). It identifies the specific verb (query), resource (metadata), and scope (form field information), distinguishing it from sibling bill-querying tools. Examples of common form IDs further clarify the target resource.

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 the purpose: to retrieve field information for constructing query and save parameters ('便于构造查询和保存参数'). This gives clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or mention when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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