kdy_list_ar_receive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose read-only status explicitly ('只读') and reveals the HTTP GET method, which signals a safe query operation. However, it fails to mention pagination behavior, authentication requirements (despite a sibling kdy_auth_fetch_token existing), or what the response contains, leaving meaningful gaps given the zero annotation coverage.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('查询收款单列表') before the endpoint reference. There is no wasted text, though one might argue it errs on the side of under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 conveys the essential navigation (read-only, endpoint, resource). Yet it lacks sibling differentiation and parameter context, and with no annotations or output schema it leaves the agent to infer behavior, making it merely adequate rather than 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 for parameter meaning, but it adds nothing about page or size. Although these names are somewhat self-explanatory (pagination), the description offers zero elaboration on bounds, defaults behavior, or interaction between them, so it does not compensate for the schema's silence.

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 and resource ('查询收款单列表' = query receipt list) and identifies itself as read-only, citing the exact endpoint GET /jdy/v2/arap/ar_credit. However, it does not differentiate from the many sibling list tools (kdy_list_voucher, kdy_list_invoice, kdy_list_ap_pay), so an agent might struggle to pick this over those without domain knowledge.

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 the alternatives. With siblings like kdy_list_ap_pay (accounts payable), kdy_list_invoice, and kdy_list_voucher all doing similar list operations, there is no statement of when this AR receipt list is appropriate, nor any exclusions or conditions.

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