view_bill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the record lookup mechanisms (number vs bill_id) and the output scope (all fields), which is helpful. However, it does not mention aspects like potential errors, permission requirements, or read-only behavior explicitly, leaving some gaps for a simple view 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 concise and well-organized: a one-line summary, a second line stating the capability, and a neat Args section with bullet-like entries. Every sentence adds value, and the front-loaded purpose ensures quick understanding.

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 simplicity, an output schema exists (so return format is covered), and all three parameters are thoroughly explained. The only minor gap is that the description says 'number and bill_id are mutually exclusive' but does not explicitly state that at least one is required, which could cause slight ambiguity in invocation.

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 schema provides only basic type info with 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining form_id (with examples like BD_MATERIAL, SAL_SaleOrder), number (with example), bill_id, and the mutual exclusivity requirement ("number 和 bill_id 二选一"). This is exemplary parameter documentation.

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 views full details of a single record ("查看单条记录的完整详情") and returns all fields ("所有字段信息"), making its purpose specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like query_bill or query_bill_json, which may also retrieve single records, so it misses the highest score.

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 implies usage for retrieving a single record's complete details via number or internal ID, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as query_bill, query_bill_all, or query_bill_range. There is no explicit 'use when' or 'use instead' guidance, so it only achieves an implied usage score.

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