Tạo VietQR động cho đơn hàng

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, open-world write with destructiveHint=false. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the annotations: customer scans → funds land in the virtual account → MONA Pay fires a webhook. However it omits auth requirements, what happens on repeat calls (idempotency), and error behavior.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the core action first. The Vietnamese/English duplication adds length but no real noise, and every clause carries meaning.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum indicate what is returned (QR string? image? reference id?) and any required setup state. Neither is present, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 coverage is only 62% with 13 parameters, and the description only alludes to two of them (amount, transfer content). The undocumented parameters (userId, terminalId, loyaltyCode, traceNumber, voucherCode) get no explanation anywhere, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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: creating a dynamic VietQR pre-filled with amount and transfer content for an order through ACB. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like monapay_cancel_qr or monapay_create_checkout, though it never explicitly names which sibling to use instead.

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 description implies the payment-collection context but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. merchantId/virtualAccountPrefix must already be registered), and no comparison against the checkout or QR-cancel siblings.

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