query_bill_range

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully discloses behavior: it explains chunking, pagination, output modes, the 1MB MCP limit, and error handling (including partial write errors and returned error object). This is comprehensive for a query tool and adds significant value beyond what structured annotations would provide.

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 structured logically: opening one-liner on purpose, then a concise explanation of slicing/pagination, followed by output formats with clear formatting, and finally a list of args with useful examples. Every sentence earns its place, and the layout makes it easy to skim for key details.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: when to use, how it works, input semantics, output formats for both inline and file modes, and error handling. It includes the 1MB constraint and chunking options, making it self-contained and sufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining every parameter with colloquial but precise details (e.g., form_id examples 'SAL_SaleOrder', date_field typically 'FDate or FCreateDate', chunk values month/week/day). It also clarifies defaults and the interplay between output_path and return behavior, making all 9 parameters meaningful.

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 states it queries bills over a date range using auto-slicing and pagination, explicitly calling out suitability for cross-month/year queries. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like query_bill (single-bill queries) and query_bill_all/query_bill_to_file by its unique slicing and chunking behavior.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool ('适合跨月/跨年查询') and distinguishes inline vs. file output based on data span ('output_path 为空时内联返回...适合小跨度；非空时流式落盘，适合大跨度'). While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or say when NOT to use it, the guidance is clear enough for basic selection.

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