submit_broker_otp

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds valuable behavioral context: DNSE token lasts 8h, SSI tokens auto-renew, TCBS uses JWT 8h, and smart_otp is true if the code comes from the app. These details go beyond annotations and help the agent understand side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, the main action is front-loaded, and broker-specific details are presented in a compact, scannable list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description provides rich broker-specific behavior but omits two key contextual elements: the prerequisite of having requested an OTP (via request_broker_otp) and the origin/semantics of transaction_id, which is essential for a multi-step authentication flow. Without these, an agent might call the tool prematurely or with an incorrect transaction ID.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains smart_otp (true if code from app) and broker-specific behavior relevant to the broker parameter. However, it does not explain the otp or transaction_id parameters, which are critical for the operation. The description covers some parameters but leaves others ambiguous, requiring the agent to infer from context.

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 verb and resource: 'Nộp OTP mở phiên' (Submit OTP to open session). It also provides broker-specific outcomes (DNSE 8h token, SSI auto-renew, TCBS JWT), which distinguishes it from its sibling request_broker_otp that requests the OTP. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

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 gives broker-specific context on what happens after submission (token lifetimes, smart_otp flag), implying this tool is used after receiving an OTP. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., after request_broker_otp) or what conditions might make it inappropriate. The usage is implied but not fully explicit.

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