query_bill_json

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It thoroughly explains pagination via start_row and next_start_row, the dual role of top_count (TopRowCount and page size), and the conditional behavior of limit. This exceeds typical transparency for a query tool.

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: a one-sentence purpose, a one-sentence distinction, then a clear Args list. Each sentence earns its place, and the parameter details are dense but readable. No filler 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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, this description is unusually complete. It covers return format, pagination, parameter semantics, and sibling differentiation. The presence of an output schema means the return structure doesn't need further explanation, so the description is sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully. Every parameter is explained with concrete examples: form_id lists common values, field_keys shows a sample, top_count explains its Kingdee mapping and edge cases, and limit's conditional behavior is clarified. This goes far beyond what the bare schema properties provide.

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 tool queries Kingdee Cloud document data and returns JSON format with field names as keys. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling query_bill by highlighting the output format difference, making the purpose specific and distinct.

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 explicitly contrasts with query_bill, explaining when the JSON format is preferable. However, it does not list all alternative tools or provide explicit exclusions for when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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