request_broker_otp

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: it explains that DNSE sends email OTP, SSI sends via 2FA, and TCBS sends nothing (iOTP generated in-app). It also notes SSI's OTP validity and renewal behavior. This adds valuable context not present in the annotations, which only indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, and non-idempotent.

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 front-loads the purpose in the first sentence and then provides structured per-broker details. It is somewhat verbose but each sentence earns its place by conveying broker-specific nuances. It could be more concise, but it is well-organized and not redundant.

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 request tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential per-broker behavior and usage context. It does not mention what the tool returns or whether it triggers side effects like email delivery, but given the sibling tools and the nature of the operation, this is a minor gap. Overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 description adds meaning to the 'broker' parameter by detailing each broker's behavior, which is not in the schema. However, it does not clarify the 'email' parameter's purpose or how it is used, leaving it ambiguous. With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates for the lack of 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 action: 'Nhờ CTCK gửi OTP mở phiên' (ask broker to send OTP to open session). It specifies the verb, resource, and even differentiates broker-specific behaviors. This distinguishes it from siblings like submit_broker_otp, which is about submitting OTP, and the read-only get_* tools.

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 provides explicit per-broker guidance on when to use the tool: DNSE email OTP only needed for order placement/cancellation (skip if Smart OTP), SSI needed once for reads with auto-renewal, TCBS requires no request and directs the agent to submit_broker_otp instead. This clearly states when to use and when not, and names an alternative tool.

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