Nhận reservation về tài khoản + mua (claim = đăng ký = trả tiền)

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

Annotations say idempotentHint=false, which the description contradicts by using the word 'Idempotent' – this is technically an annotation contradiction, but the description's use is a shorthand for 'you can safely retry,' not a re-declaration of the annotation. Behavioral extras are rich: login requirement, auto-created profile/wallet, 402/422 semantics, money stays in wallet. However, the idempotent/safe-retry framing directly opposes the idempotentHint annotation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then conditions, then result. Four sentences, each earning its place. Slight redundancy in the 402/422 explanation but no filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers login prerequisites, error recovery, and return shape (order id, status, suggested_next). Missing only a note on failure side-effects like whether a failed claim leaves the reservation intact – though the 422 path implies the money stays in the wallet.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds only that claim_token comes from cloud_domain_reserve (already in schema) and mentions wallet/registrant context, but no extra syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: attach a reservation to the logged-in MONA Pass, pull transferred money into the wallet, then purchase immediately. It distinguishes itself from siblings like cloud_domain_buy (result is the same) and cloud_domain_reserve (source of claim_token) by naming them.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and recovery paths: call again on 402 (→ cloud_topup or wait for QR transfer) or 422 registrant_required (→ cloud_domain_registrant_set then re-claim). Names alternatives and the conditions that select them.

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