Lấy một phiên thanh toán

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the description doesn't need to cover those. It adds that the tool should be used for server-side verification before delivery, but it doesn't disclose anything about return format, error handling, or potential side effects.

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 description is very short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The inclusion of a usage recommendation is efficient, though the bilingual formatting with a slash is slightly disjointed.

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?

Given that annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the schema is fully documented, the description is mostly complete for a simple retrieval tool. However, it lacks any mention of what the checkout object contains or how to interpret statuses, which could be helpful without an output schema.

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 schema fully describes the single parameter (checkout_id) with a description and minLength, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter details beyond what is in the schema.

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 (lấy/get) and resource (checkout session), and explicitly says it retrieves status and details by ID. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like monapay_create_checkout and monapay_list_checkouts by being a single-resource retrieval.

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 advises server-side verification before delivery, which gives some usage context, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like monapay_list_checkouts or how to handle missing checkouts. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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