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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and the description explains why: each call creates a 'lượt' (turn) and returns {maLuot, trangThai: DANG_XU_LY} while processing, so calls are not idempotent and are consistent with the non-read-only hint. It also discloses that GIR rules and legal basis are quoted verbatim from the backend. It does not state latency/rate limits or failure behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 important content is front-loaded, but the description is written twice in near-identical English and Vietnamese, which doubles length without adding information. The final async-receipt sentence is valuable and would stand on its own; the duplication is the main waste.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description usefully covers the deferred-return shape (maLuot, DANG_XU_LY) and that results are fetched by turn code. For a 6-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, though, it leaves dinhDanh undocumented and does not clarify how the textual fields are combined or which are truly optional in practice.

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 loosely maps the textual inputs (tên hàng, chất liệu, công dụng, thông số) onto tenHang/chatLieu/congDung/thongSo and describes nguonThongSo's semantics (source of the specs: ANH, LINK, CHU). However the dinhDanh identity object (frame/xacMinh) is entirely unexplained and no enum value meaning beyond the gloss 'where the specs come from' is given.

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 and resource: suggests Vietnam HS codes for a product from a text description, with alternative codes and GIR/legal citations. The scope limits (text-only, no images or marketplace links) make it operationally distinguishable. It never names a sibling such as tim_ma_hs, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Gives real usage context: input must be a textual description (name, material, use, specs), not images or marketplace links, and nguonThongSo must record where the specs came from. It also explains the deferred mode: the gateway returns a receipt and status/result are fetched with the same turn code. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-tool routing is stated.

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