Nạp ví bằng VietQR ngay trong terminal

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: three output representations, the light-background variant, that funds are auto-credited to the wallet, and that a separate call is needed to confirm. It does not mention QR expiry or what happens on a duplicate amount, which are relevant for a payment flow.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every sentence carries information (return formats, human step, confirmation path). The nested parenthetical about QR variants is dense but still readable; little is wasted.

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 usefully enumerates the returned QR artifacts and the confirmation path, which covers the main gaps. However, for a non-idempotent (idempotentHint=false) payment tool that nevertheless accepts an idempotency_key, the description says nothing about retry semantics, QR validity window, or failure modes.

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 only 50%: amount is documented in the schema (integer VND, min 10,000, max 500,000,000) but idempotency_key has no schema description at all. The prose mentions neither parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema and does nothing to compensate for the undocumented idempotency_key.

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 and resource ('tự tạo yêu cầu nạp ví và nhận QR VietQR') and enumerates exactly what comes back (qr_ascii, qr_file, qr_url), so an agent knows this initiates a wallet top-up and returns scannable payment artifacts. It also differentiates itself from the sibling cloud_topup_status, which it names for confirmation.

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?

It makes the usage flow explicit: the agent generates the request, the human scans the QR with a banking app, and confirmation happens via cloud_topup_status. That routes the agent to the right follow-up tool, though there is no explicit statement of when not to use this tool (e.g. when a top-up is already pending).

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