Xác minh địa chỉ nhận email

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior; the description adds a genuinely useful anti-hallucination constraint about sourcing the code. It does not disclose what verification actually changes, whether codes expire, or that repeat attempts may consume limited tries (consistent with idempotentHint=false).

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 pair the action with its constraint. The bilingual duplication mirrors the Vietnamese title and is consistent with the toolset, so it is not wasted text.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally state the outcome of successful verification, expected failure modes, and the resend alternative. The strongest element (never guess the code) is present, but the post-call picture is missing.

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 all three parameters are documented there, including the 6-digit pattern for code. The description only reiterates the origin of the code value, adding marginal semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 verb (verify) and resource (a recipient/email) and adds the essential qualifier that the 6-digit code is the one the user read from their inbox. It is distinguishable from siblings like monapay_resend_email_verification, though it does not name any 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 a clear operational rule for the critical precondition: the code must come from the user, never be guessed. It lacks routing guidance for the common adjacent case (code missing or expired -> use the resend tool), which is the main gap.

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