kdy_get_invoice

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly declares read-only (只读) and the GET method, which is valuable safety context. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on a missing/invalid id, authentication requirements, or response shape. The read-only claim is honest and consistent, so no contradiction.

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?

Two brief sentences with zero filler: the purpose is front-loaded ('按 id 查询发票详情'), the read-only flag is included, and the endpoint is appended. Every character earns its place, and the description is appropriately short for a single-parameter read tool.

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 simple single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential surface: what it does, by what key, that it's non-destructive, and the underlying endpoint. Details like not-found behavior or auth are absent, but given the tool's low complexity, the coverage is nearly 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%, so the description must compensate. It ties the single parameter invoice_id to the 'by id' lookup purpose, confirming the parameter's role as the record identifier. But it adds no format, source, or constraint details beyond what the id-type field already implies — adequate but minimal.

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+resource: '按 id 查询发票详情' (query invoice detail by id), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling kdy_list_invoice (list vs. single-by-id). It also discloses the REST endpoint GET /jdy/v2/fi/invoice_detail, reinforcing the operation. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling, but the 'by id' scope makes differentiation immediate.

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?

Usage is implied: the 'by id' phrasing signals this is for fetching one invoice when an identifier is known, which contrasts with kdy_list_invoice for searching/listing. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-naming guidance is provided. An agent must infer the selection rule from the sibling names rather than being told.

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