Đăng ký thông báo tiền vào và gửi OTP lần 2

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

Annotations already disclose that this is not read-only, is open-world, and is not idempotent. The description adds an important user-consent instruction for the OTP step, but it does not explain side effects, permissions, or output behavior for this registration call itself.

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 front-loaded with the step number and core action, and it is short. The bilingual duplication is slightly redundant but not bloated.

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 one-parameter registration tool with annotations covering safety hints, the description covers purpose, sequence, and a key user-interaction rule. It could be clearer about whether this call itself triggers OTP delivery or only registration, but it is largely complete.

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% and the single parameter is documented as the VA ID returned by monapay_link_bank_verify_otp. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 action and scope: step 3/4 registers real-time transaction notifications. It also refers to a verification step, which helps distinguish it from the OTP verification sibling, though it does not name that sibling 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?

Gives clear sequencing context ('Step 3/4') and a critical procedural rule: the agent must ask the user before verification and never guess the OTP. It does not name alternatives or exclusions explicitly, but the workflow position is clear.

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