view_bill

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states '查看' (view), indicating a read-only behavior, and promises '所有字段信息' (all field information), describing what the agent can expect. No side effects or prerequisites are mentioned, but for a straightforward view operation this is reasonable transparency.

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 and structured. The main purpose is stated in two brief sentences, followed by a compact parameter list with examples. Every sentence contributes value and there is no redundant 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?

The description covers purpose, usage, and all parameters effectively. Since an output schema exists, the absence of return-value explanations is acceptable. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit sibling differentiation, but the 'single record' focus already suggests the tool's niche, making it fairly complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates. It defines form_id with examples (BD_MATERIAL, SAL_SaleOrder), explains number as the document number with an example, and clarifies bill_id as the internal ID, plus the mutual exclusivity rule. This adds substantial semantic meaning beyond the bare 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 function: '查看金蝶云星空单条记录的完整详情' (view complete details of a single record). It specifies a precise verb (view), a resource (bill record), and a scope (single record), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_bill that likely handle lists or broader queries.

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 how to use the tool: by number or internal ID, with the constraint that number and bill_id are mutually exclusive. It implies the appropriate context (when you need complete details of one specific record) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls slightly short of full exclusions.

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