Trạng thái yêu cầu nạp ví

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds useful context by disclosing what comes back (status plus current balance), but says nothing about polling cadence, how long a topup_id stays valid, or what happens after paid.

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 tightly written sentences, with the core action (read top-up status) front-loaded and the usage scenario second. 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?

Although there is no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned status values and the included balance, so an agent knows roughly what to expect. Minor gaps remain around polling behavior and topup_id lifetime, but the definition is adequate for a one-parameter read tool.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents topup_id (and its origin in cloud_topup). The description adds no format, length, or lifecycle guidance beyond what the schema provides, 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 resource ("Đọc trạng thái một yêu cầu nạp") and even enumerates the possible status values (pending/paid), plus notes it also returns the current balance. It implies the relationship to the top-up creation step, though it does not explicitly name the cloud_topup sibling in the description body.

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?

"Dùng để chờ tiền vào rồi tiếp tục việc đang làm" gives a clear usage scenario: poll after the user scans the QR and continue the pending work once paid. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to call it, but the context is unambiguous.

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