query_bill_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses auto-pagination until completion or max_rows cutoff, early termination behavior, the exhausted/next_start_row/hint return flags, and the safety limit. This goes beyond simple read/write hints, offering rich behavioral context.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: core behavior first, then usage guidance, return format, and parameter definitions. Every sentence earns its place, and the use of sections (返回格式, Args) keeps it scannable without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Although an output schema is indicated, the description provides an explicit return format inline, which is valuable. It covers all six parameters, provides usage constraints and alternatives, and explains the 1 MB limit. For a tool with no annotations and a low-coverage schema, this description is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: form_id (with examples like SAL_SaleOrder), field_keys (comma-separated format), filter_string (example filter), order_string, max_rows (safety default), and page_size (default and recommendation). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 uses a specific verb '自动翻页查询' (auto-paginate query) with a clear resource 'bill' and scope 'all', distinguishing it from siblings like query_bill (single page) and query_bill_range (date sharding). It clearly explains the pagination behavior and the max_rows safety limit.

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?

Explicitly states the tool is suitable for scenarios estimating ≤ several thousand rows, and for >5000 rows recommends query_bill_to_file or query_bill_range, citing the 1 MB MCP return limit. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

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