Xác thực OTP lần 2 và hoàn tất nhận tiền

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-annotated behavior: it is the final step, the OTP originates from the user's phone, and the agent must solicit it rather than fabricate it. It does not disclose what happens on an invalid OTP (lockouts, retry limits) or the exact side effect of completion.

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 "Step 4/4" framing and the MUST ASK imperative are front-loaded and every sentence is on-message. The content is duplicated verbatim in Vietnamese and English, which doubles the length without adding information, but neither version is padded.

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 two-parameter mutating step with full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description supplies the crucial operational knowledge (obtain OTP from the user, never guess). The remaining gap is the outcome/error behavior, which is a minor omission rather than an agent-blocking one.

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 both parameters (code, acb_request_id) are already well documented in the schema with pattern and length constraints and cross-references. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 anchors the tool as "Step 4/4" of the notification/registration flow and states the OTP comes from the bank to the user's phone, which is a clear purpose statement given the name and title. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling monapay_link_bank_verify_otp, another OTP-verification tool, so an agent must rely on the name and the acb_request_id linkage to tell them apart.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition for calling: the agent MUST ASK the user for the OTP and must never guess it. That is clear usage guidance for the critical case. It stops short of naming alternatives or saying when NOT to use it (e.g. wrong-flow OTPs), so it is strong context without exclusions.

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