Bắt đầu nộp hồ sơ .vn

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the state gate (pending_verification) and that output is a generated form plus upload link, but says nothing about permissions, side effects of re-calling, or expiry of the upload link.

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?

Two short sentences, the artifact produced is front-loaded and the precondition follows immediately. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description does partially cover the return (pre-filled declaration + upload link) and the triggering state, but it omits what the agent should do next (upload/submit, then poll cloud_domain_verify_status), leaving the workflow half-specified.

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% and the single `id` parameter is documented in-schema as the order ID from cloud_domain_buy. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 artifact: 'Sinh bản khai đã điền sẵn và link upload hồ sơ .vn' (generate a pre-filled declaration and upload link for the .vn dossier). This is far more than a restatement of the name, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby cloud_domain_verify_status.

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?

Gives an explicit activation condition: use after buying a .vn domain with status=pending_verification. That is a real when-to-use rule, but no alternative tool is named (e.g. verify_status for checking progress) and no exclusions are stated.

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