Công cụ MONA affiliate link

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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds only that this is a non-authoritative compatibility alias and what data it yields (link + revenue-share rates); it says nothing about rate limits, auth needs or response shape beyond the content summary.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, leading with the alias relationship then the returned data. The bilingual duplication inflates the length slightly, but for a locale-specific tool that pairing is functional rather than wasteful.

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?

With no parameters, no nested objects and no output schema, this is a simple read tool, and the description covers both the alias relationship and the returned content (referral link and revenue-share rates). Little else is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty with additionalProperties=false, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 applies; nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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+resource ('Lấy link giới thiệu MONA Cloud và mức chia sẻ doanh thu' / get the referral link and revenue-share rates) and explicitly identifies the tool as a compatibility alias of cloud_affiliate_link. That positions it apart from cloud_affiliate_stats and the canonical cloud_link/vibecloud_link siblings, though it stops short of a crisp one-line scope statement in English.

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?

'để người dùng duyệt trước khi đăng' (so users can review before posting) hints at the use context, and the alias framing implies it is interchangeable with cloud_affiliate_link. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or statement about which of the two equivalent tools an agent should prefer.

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