Công cụ MONA credit redeem

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds that the code must be user-supplied and approved, but says nothing about what happens on an invalid/duplicate code or whether repeated redemption is rejected, leaving meaningful behavior undisclosed for a credit-mutating tool.

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 definition is short and front-loads the alias identity before the usage constraint. The bilingual duplication (Vietnamese and English restating the same content plus a redundant "Compatibility alias" gloss) costs a little without adding information.

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 one-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, provenance of the code, and a key guardrail. It is still incomplete on the outcome of the operation and on failure/duplicate-redemption handling, which matter for a financial credit action.

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% and the single `code` parameter carries only minLength/maxLength in the schema. The description partially compensates by explaining the value is a user-provided, pre-approved promotional credit code that must not be invented, but it adds no format, casing, or validity details.

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 gives a concrete verb+resource ("Redeem an approved promotional credit code") and explicitly identifies itself as the compatibility alias of cloud_credit_redeem, so an agent can tell what it does and how it relates to its near-identical sibling. It is not fully explicit about whether the alias behaves identically to the canonical tool, which keeps it from a 5.

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 states a clear precondition and anti-pattern: use the credit code the user provides after they consent, and do not attempt to guess the code. This is real routing guidance, but it never states when to prefer this alias over cloud_credit_redeem, so the alternative-selection case is left implicit.

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