sx_list_reimbursements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only explains date format and status meaning, but does not state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention pagination behavior, default ordering, or what happens for empty results. For a query tool, the absence of any safety or side-effect statement is a notable gap.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the supplementary format details are kept minimal. Every clause adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 eight parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far too sparse. It does not cover parameter semantics beyond two items, does not describe return values, and provides no usage examples or constraints. An agent would likely need to guess on fields, pagination, and valid statuses, making the tool under-specified for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clarification for two parameters (date format for date_from/date_to and status values like 'A' for draft), but leaves six other parameters (fields, bill_no, order_by, page_size, page_index) unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct calls without additional inference.

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 verb '查询' (query) and the resource '报销单' (reimbursement bills), including the physical table name 'bdi_ex_bx'. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like sx_list_projects or sx_list_loans, so an agent can tell which list tool to invoke.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling list tools (e.g., sx_list_forms, sx_list_loans), there is no mention of exclusions or criteria for selecting this specific tool. It only describes what it does, not the context that would route an agent here.

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