sx_get_bill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does add two genuinely useful behaviors: form_id accepts Chinese aliases, and with_attachments=True includes the default attachment panel. However, it does not state whether the operation is strictly read-only, how errors surface when data_id/form_id are invalid, or any auth requirements. The '查' verb implies non-destructiveness, but this is left implicit rather than explicit.

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 two tight sentences with zero wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds behavioral detail without redundancy. Every clause earns its place.

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 (3 params, 2 required, no nested objects), but with no output schema and no annotations, the description is the agent's only guide. It adequately covers the purpose and two of the three parameters, yet leaves data_id unexplained and says nothing about the return format, which matters given there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to form_id (Chinese alias support) and with_attachments (attachment panel behavior), both of which go beyond the bare schema. However, data_id is a required parameter that is entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving a significant semantic gap for a required field.

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 states a specific verb and resource: '查任意单据详情' (query details of any bill), and highlights a distinctive feature (form_id supports Chinese aliases). It clearly communicates what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate itself from the retrieval siblings like sx_get_by_id or sx_list_query, which could overlap in purpose, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling set contains several data-retrieval tools (sx_get_by_id, sx_list_query, sx_build_query) that could serve overlapping needs, yet the description offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing hints. Usage context is only implied by the word '查' (query), which is insufficient given the ambiguity with siblings.

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