get_dong_tien_playbooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the general topic; it does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or the fact that it returns playbooks. With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate as it neither adds nor contradicts.

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 is very concise with two lines, front-loading English then Vietnamese. No unnecessary words, but the Vietnamese is redundant. It could be slightly improved by stating it returns playbooks, but overall it is efficiently short.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does not explain what a playbook is or the return format. However, the tool is simple (two optional params, low complexity), so the description is minimally adequate. It would benefit from mentioning the structure of returned playbooks.

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 coverage is 100% with both 'category' and 'limit' having descriptive comments. The description does not elaborate on these parameters or add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 tool handles money flow analysis (foreign, institutional, retail) and includes a Vietnamese translation for context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_foreign_flow' by focusing on playbooks, though it could be more explicit that it returns playbooks rather than performing analysis.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_foreign_flow' or other playbook tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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