Gói MONA Mail

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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no note on whether prices are live/cached, whether auth or account context is required, or any rate limits.

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, front-loaded with the trigger condition and then the action. The bilingual duplication is somewhat redundant but does not bloat the text meaningfully.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it gets back (prices and quota) and when to reach for it. Annotations carry the safety profile, so little else is needed.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema's empty properties object is consistent with the description's read-only comparison framing.

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 clear read action on a specific resource: read current prices and quotas for email plans, and use it to compare plans. It is distinguishable in intent from the sibling mail_plan_set (which mutates a plan), though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 Vietnamese clause 'Khi chọn gói gửi mail' supplies a when-condition (use while choosing a mail plan), which is a genuine usage cue. However, no alternatives or exclusions are named — notably mail_plan_set is not mentioned — so routing is only implied.

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