Gửi lại mã xác minh email

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the burden is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context not present in structured fields: a hard rate limit of five requests per address per hour, plus the fact that the code is newly generated ('mới'/'new'), implying prior codes may be superseded.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by the rate limit; every clause carries information. The Vietnamese/English duplication roughly doubles the length for the same content, which is a mild conciseness cost but keeps it self-contained.

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, no-output-schema tool with annotations covering the safety profile, purpose and rate limit are the essentials and both are present. Still missing: whether the previous code is invalidated, what the caller should do on hitting the limit, and how errors are surfaced.

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 coverage is 50% (config_id documented as a UUID, email only constrained by format/pattern). The phrase 'một địa chỉ trong cấu hình' ties the email argument to the config, which is useful relational context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't clarify whether the address must already exist in the config or whether an unknown address will error.

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 ('Gửi mã xác minh mới' / 'Resend a verification code') and scopes it to an address within a config. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like monapay_verify_email or monapay_test_email by name and verb, though it never names or contrasts those alternatives.

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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is for re-requesting a code that was not received. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over monapay_verify_email or monapay_test_email, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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