Danh sách phiên thanh toán

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the filterable dimensions but discloses nothing further about pagination defaults, result size, or ordering. It adds some context but no real behavioral depth.

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 action, no filler. The Chinese/Vietnamese + English duplication is slightly redundant but acceptable for a bilingual tool and does not obscure 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?

With 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but thin: it omits date format, status enum semantics, pagination behavior, and default ordering. Enough to attempt a call, not enough to call it confidently.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and does name every filter axis (status, order code, date range, pagination), which maps to all 6 parameters. However it adds no semantics such as date format (YYYY-MM-DD), status enum values, or pagination defaults, so it only partially compensates.

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 (list) and resource (hosted checkouts) and enumerates the filter dimensions (status, order code, date range, pagination). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts itself with the closest siblings such as monapay_get_checkout (singular) or monapay_list_transactions.

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?

Usage is only implied through the listed filter criteria; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing (e.g. use this instead of get_checkout when you lack an ID). An agent must infer the appropriate scenario.

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