kdy_customer_debt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly notes '（只读）' (read-only), which informs the agent that this operation does not mutate data. Beyond that, it reveals nothing about the returned data shape, authorization requirements, or any side effects. For a simple read operation, the read-only note adds some value, but significant behavioral context is missing.

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 a single compact sentence with the read-only note front-loaded before the endpoint. It is efficient with no filler words, achieving maximal brevity. This is good conciseness, though the content itself is minimal.

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 has only one optional parameter and no output schema, so it is simple, but the description still omits any explanation of the parameter's meaning, potential default behavior when omitted, or the shape of the response. An agent calling this tool would lack necessary information to correctly supply or interpret the customer_id, making the description inadequate for full comprehension.

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 does not mention the customer_id parameter at all. The input schema only shows a string with a default of '', leaving its purpose entirely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, so an agent cannot infer what customer_id represents or how to use it.

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 operation ('查询客户欠款余额' – query customer debt balance) and explicitly marks it as read-only. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like kdy_list_ar_receive or kdy_list_ap_pay, which may also involve customer balances. The verb and resource are specific, but the distinction from related tools is absent.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context about filtering or scoping, and no mention of required prerequisites. It simply states the action and the endpoint. There is no explicit or implicit usage scenario.

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