kdy_calc_invoice_tax

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: it's a local engine (no remote Kingdee call), returns tax/untaxed/deductibility/compliance info, and auto-infers 'kind' when empty. However, it doesn't describe failure modes, input validation behavior, or what happens on inconsistent inputs, leaving some behavioral uncertainty for a 9-parameter calculation tool.

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 concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and the local-engine distinction, then lists return fields and the optional-kind behavior. Efficient and scannable, though its brevity comes at the cost of parameter coverage.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is markedly incomplete. It explains overall purpose and outputs but leaves the majority of parameter semantics undocumented, and provides no guidance on how the calculation handles edge cases. An agent would struggle to construct a correct call beyond the two required fields (invoice_no, total).

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% and the description only mentions the 'kind' parameter (auto-inferred when empty). The remaining eight parameters (fuel, title, total, face_net, face_tax, passenger, invoice_no, category_hint) are completely unexplained in both schema and description. With zero coverage and 9 parameters, the description fails to compensate, leaving agents to guess at meaningful semantics like the distinction between 'total' vs 'face_net' vs 'face_tax'.

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?

Purpose is clear: calculate invoice tax (发票税额计算). The description states it uses a local engine (not calling Kingdee) and lists exact return fields (税额/不含税/是否可抵扣/说明/合规问题). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all Kingdee data CRUD/list operations, so an agent can tell it apart from the others.

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 implies usage context (local tax calculation when you don't want to call Kingdee), and the sibling set clarifies the boundary since all siblings are Kingdee data operations while this is a computation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisite conditions (e.g., whether invoice data must already exist).

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