kdy_list_account

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states '只读' (read-only), which is a key trait, but it does not mention pagination behavior, sorting, or any side effects beyond read-only. The '对账基准' phrase is more about purpose than behavior. This is minimal disclosure.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose, which is good. However, it omits essential details (parameter semantics, pagination, etc.), making it under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It is not bloated, but it does not fully serve the agent's needs.

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 list tool with two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at least mention the parameters and clarify the return value. It only gives a high-level purpose and an API endpoint. Pagination is not addressed, and the meaning of '对账基准' is left to inference. This is incomplete.

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 'page' or 'size' parameters at all. Since the schema provides no descriptions and only defaults, the agent has no guidance on how to use these parameters effectively. The description fails to compensate for the schema's gap.

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 it queries the list of accounting subjects (会计科目) and marks it as read-only and a reconciliation benchmark. The resource is specific, but it does not explicitly name its closest sibling (kdy_list_account_type) or differentiate them, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 labels the tool as '对账基准' (reconciliation benchmark), which implies its use in reconciliation workflows, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to other list tools like kdy_list_account_type or kdy_list_voucher. The intent is inferable but not explicit.

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