kdy_list_ap_pay

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 explicitly states the tool is read-only and that writing payments is permanently forbidden ('付款写入永久禁止'), which is critical safety information. It also mentions the endpoint as a technical reference. While it doesn't cover auth, rate limits, or failure modes, the read-only and no-write disclosure is strong for a list operation.

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 exceptionally concise: a single sentence with the purpose and read-only constraint, followed by the endpoint. Every word carries meaning; the prohibition on writes is immediately clear. No fluff or redundancy.

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 paginated list tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what it does, that it's read-only, and its endpoint. It doesn't describe return format or pagination specifics, but given the simplicity of the tool and the absence of additional requirements, it is sufficient. The lack of explicit output documentation is a minor gap.

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%, meaning the description provides no explanation for the two parameters (page and size). While the names are self-explanatory for pagination, the description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. It neither elaborates on pagination behavior, defaults, or any specific usage guidance for parameters, so agents must infer meaning solely from names.

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 action: query a payment list ('查询付款单列表'), specifies the resource (付款单/payment order), and adds that it is read-only. It also provides the endpoint for reference. While it doesn't explicitly contrast it with sibling list tools like kdy_list_ar_receive, the resource is distinct enough that an agent can understand its purpose.

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 a use case ('付款核对' - payment reconciliation) and emphasizes read-only nature, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use the tool or mention alternative tools (e.g., for writing payments, it says writing is permanently forbidden but doesn't point to a write tool). The context is present but without explicit routing guidance.

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