Giữ chỗ tên miền + QR trả tiền (không cần tài khoản)

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

Annotations only mark this as non-readOnly, openWorld and non-idempotent. The description adds substantial behavioral context: no money is deducted, no real registration occurs, it only holds the name inside MONA Cloud (hold_scope=monacloud), and critically that outside parties can still register the same name at other registries during the 30 minutes. It also discloses return artifacts (qr_url, claim_url, claim_token, guest_token).

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 purpose and the sibling alternative, and the workflow ordering (collect info → QR → claim) is logical. It is dense as one long block and some conditional guidance could be tighter, but most sentences carry operational value.

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 complex 9-parameter tool with a nested registrant object and no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: required inputs, optional registrant handling, return values (QR, claim tokens), and the next steps the agent must drive. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains that marketing_consent must be true only when the user agrees and otherwise left false, that spelling_confirmed comes from confirming the user's spelling, and that registrant should be populated now if subject details (.vn needs CCCD/MST) are already collected.

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 (reserve a domain for 30 minutes) and constrains the scope precisely to users who do NOT have MONA Pass or are not logged in on this device. It explicitly names the sibling cloud_domain_claim as the alternative for users who already have a Pass, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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 explicit when-to-use conditions (buying in-session without prior registration), when-not (already have Pass → call cloud_domain_claim), and the full downstream flow (give QR, then open claim_url after payment). It also lists the mandatory information to collect from the user before invoking.

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