Lịch sử gửi nhóm Zalo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this retrieves send history and supports status filtering, which is useful context beyond annotations, but it omits return format, pagination behavior, and any auth or rate-limit details.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and then states the filter capability. There is no filler or repetition, and every part of the sentence carries meaning.

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 read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it does not mention the limit parameter, return format, or pagination. It covers only the main purpose and status filter, leaving an agent without enough context to call the tool optimally.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the status filter (success or failure, corresponding to enum values 'ok' and 'failed') but completely omits the 'limit' parameter, leaving half the parameters undocumented in plain language.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Tra lịch sử gửi vào nhóm Zalo' (look up send history to Zalo groups), which is distinct from siblings like listing groups or testing sends. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or clarify how it differs from other Zalo or log tools.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It only implies that the tool is for retrieving history, but does not say when to prefer it over monapay_list_zalo_groups, monapay_test_zalo_group, or other log tools.

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