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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context that the report is routed to the operations team ('để nhóm vận hành xem'), but says nothing about what the reporter gets back, rate limits, or whether a report is deduplicated.

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 action and its subject are front-loaded in the first clause, with the conditional parameter hint immediately after. The Vietnamese restatement is redundant for a bilingual audience but adds no bloat beyond one sentence.

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 simple three-parameter, no-output-schema report tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is close to sufficient. It still leaves the post-submission behavior and the required/optional distinction among parameters unstated.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explicitly explains maLuot (the turn code from a result) and implies moTa (the bug description) and tenCongCu (which OZ tool), which is partial compensation; the length constraints and the exact role of tenCongCu are left entirely to the 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 states a specific verb+resource ('Report a bug or connection problem with an OZ tool'), so an agent can tell what it does without opening the schema. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely related sibling gui_phan_hoi (send feedback), which is a real ambiguity risk.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent learns to include the maLuot code 'from the result' when one exists, which is a useful conditional hint. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. gui_phan_hoi guidance and no exclusions, so guidance remains only partially developed.

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