Công cụ MONA invoice list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the 'monthly' scope of the invoices, but says nothing about whether results are paginated, how far back they go, or what fields are returned.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The bilingual duplication is mildly redundant, but it is a deliberate localization choice rather than padding.

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 simple no-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, this is close to adequate, but it leaves open whether it lists all historical invoices or only the current billing cycle, and what the response shape is.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description's 'hàng tháng / monthly' qualifier adds the only relevant semantic constraint.

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: 'Đọc hoá đơn hàng tháng của tài khoản / List monthly invoices' — an agent knows this retrieves monthly billing invoices for the account. It does not distinguish itself from near-identical siblings like vibewcloud_invoice_list or cloud_invoice_pdf, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this versus the sibling invoice tools (vibewcloud_invoice_list, cloud_invoice_pdf) or any prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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