Danh sách cấu hình email

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that recipient verification status is included in the result, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or completeness of the list.

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, front-loaded sentences that convey the resource and the returned data. The bilingual duplication is redundant but compact and does not bury the primary claim.

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 with no output schema, stating what the list contains is arguably sufficient. Missing only list-size, ordering, and pagination expectations, which are minor here.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no semantic gap for the schema to fill and baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument, full-list call.

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 ('List email notification configs') and adds the returned scope ('recipient verification status'). It is clearly differentiable from siblings like monapay_list_email_suppressions or monapay_email_logs, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative guidance is given. The agent cannot tell from the description whether to prefer this over monapay_email_stats or monapay_email_logs for inspecting email configuration.

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