Danh sách tài khoản ngân hàng đã nối

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only that the accounts are already linked (versus pending) and an example issuer ('ACB'), which is modest extra context but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the Vietnamese line carrying the actual content and the English line a faithful translation. The bilingual duplication is functional rather than wasteful, though it does add length without new information.

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 list tool the description is close to adequate, but with no output schema it does not explain the shape or fields of the returned account list. The 'ACB…' example hints at the content without describing it.

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 the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameters whose semantics need explaining, and the description correctly implies an unfiltered listing.

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 gives a specific verb ('Liệt kê'/'List') and resource ('tài khoản ngân hàng'/'bank accounts') plus scoping ('đã nối vào MONA Pay'). It implies but does not explicitly name the sibling distinction from monapay_list_virtual_accounts, so it stays a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as monapay_list_virtual_accounts or the monapay_link_bank_start flow. The agent must infer usage context entirely from the tool name.

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