kdy_reconciliation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description explicitly states '只读' (read-only) and includes the GET method, which is a positive disclosure of the operation's side-effect-free nature. However, it does not mention whether authentication is required, whether pagination exists, or any potential rate limits. For a simple query tool, this partial disclosure is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single statement and an HTTP endpoint. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. There is no redundancy or filler. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices essential detail, which slightly reduces its effectiveness, but as a structural assessment, it is appropriately minimal.

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?

Despite being a simple tool with only three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is fundamentally incomplete for correct invocation. The absence of any parameter explanation means the agent cannot know how to construct the request (e.g., date range format, whether customer_id is optional or required for filtering). No information about the response structure is given, but that is secondary. The tool is not callable correctly without additional context about parameters.

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?

Three parameters (end, start, customer_id) are present in the schema, all without descriptions or types beyond 'string'. The description does not explain the purpose or format of any parameter, nor does it clarify how they relate to the reconciliation statement query. With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate, but it does not. An agent cannot correctly populate these parameters based on the given information.

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 purpose: '查询往来对账单（只读）' which means 'Query reconciliation statement (read-only)'. It specifies the resource (往来对账单 / reconciliation statement) and the verb (查询 / query). The HTTP method GET and path are also provided, further clarifying the intended operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kdy_list_ar_receive or kdy_customer_debt, which focus on different accounting entities.

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 alternatives. It does not mention any specific scenarios or conditions that would select this tool over other query tools (e.g., kdy_list_invoice, kdy_list_voucher). There is no explicit 'when not to use' or reference to sibling tools. The agent is left to infer from the name and the read-only note, which is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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