Bắt đầu nối ngân hàng ACB và gửi OTP

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real behavior beyond them: the OTP is delivered by the bank to the user's phone, the agent must solicit it rather than fabricate it, and the call registers an account plus VA. Missing details on required auth or failure/error behavior keep it from a 5.

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 content is short and front-loaded, but it is presented twice (Vietnamese then English), doubling length without adding information. The bilingual mirroring is defensible for the audience yet still redundant by strict conciseness standards.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining the flow, and it does describe this leg plus the OTP handoff. With 7 parameters at full schema coverage, most semantics are covered elsewhere; the main gap is the absence of explicit sequencing to the named verify-OTP sibling and handling of the two alternative account-identification paths.

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 100%, including the phone_number note that it receives the OTP, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds only indirect value by explaining the OTP/phone linkage; it does not clarify prefix, identifier, or the bank_account_id override beyond what the schema says. 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+resource: 'Bước 1/4: đăng ký tài khoản ACB + VA' / 'Step 1/4: register the ACB account and VA'. It positions itself in a multi-step flow and implies the follow-up verification tool, though it never names monapay_link_bank_verify_otp outright, so sibling differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Gives clear workflow context: this is step 1 of 4, and the agent MUST ask the user for the OTP before invoking the verification step and must never guess it. That is actionable when-to-use guidance for the next call. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use this tool.

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