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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return contents (phạm vi, sản phẩm bàn giao, phù hợp với ai, điểm không phù hợp, thời lượng, đường dẫn, học thuyết). It is silent on auth/limits, but for a read/search tool the disclosed output shape is the meaningful 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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in a single dense sentence, followed by a compact exclusion note. Dense but every clause earns its place; slightly long but not padded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully enumerates the return fields, and it names the sibling for the one thing it does not cover (pricing). Combined with full schema coverage, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though no annotation layer reinforces behavior.

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 100% with 2 parameters, so the schema already documents both 'nganh' (optional industry hint) and 'cau_hoi' (natural-language need). The description implies matching against 'nhu cầu' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Tìm) and resource (dịch vụ thiết kế thương hiệu của Sinh Vũ), and enumerates scope (17 dịch vụ, 5 nhóm). It also distinguishes itself from a sibling by noting there is no pricing and pointing to khung_gia, so an agent can tell it apart from the price tool without opening the schema.

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 routes the agent away for one case ('Không có giá (dùng khung_gia)'), which is a clear exclusion plus named alternative. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like mo_yeu_cau or tim_case, leaving those boundaries to inference.

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