kdy_list_voucher

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It correctly states the operation is read-only (只读) and includes the HTTP GET method, both useful safety hints. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, response format, date filtering semantics, or any potential edge cases. The read-only mention adds value beyond nothing, but the coverage is thin.

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, short sentence that gets to the point efficiently. It is not over-verbose and front-loads the core action. However, it omits necessary details, so it is not perfectly structured for completeness, but for what it contains, it is concise.

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?

With four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no parameter guidance, no expected return format, no pagination rules, and no mention of date formats or required scopes. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 explain the four parameters (page, size, start_date, end_date). It does not mention any of them, leaving agents to guess format, meaning, or constraints. This is a critical gap for a tool with four parameters.

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?

Description clearly states it queries a list of accounting vouchers (查询会计凭证列表) and notes it is read-only and for reconciliation (进销项/账面对账). The verb 'list' and resource 'voucher' are explicit, and the reconciliation purpose distinguishes it from other list tools like list_invoice. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as kdy_get_voucher, so it doesn't achieve a 5.

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 gives a use context ('进销项/账面对账' – for input/output & account reconciliation), implying when to use it. But it provides no explicit exclusion or mention of alternatives, such as kdy_get_voucher for individual vouchers or other list tools. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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