Công cụ MONA invoice list

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds only that the scope is monthly account invoices; it does not add auth, pagination, rate-limit, or return-format 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?

The definition is short and front-loads the alias identity and purpose. The Vietnamese/English duplication adds some redundancy, but it remains compact.

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 no-parameter, read-only alias, the description supplies enough to identify what it does and that it is safe to call. Missing usage guidance and return-format notes are minor because annotations carry the safety profile and no output schema exists.

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?

There are no parameters (0 params), so the schema/description interaction is not applicable; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description does not need to clarify 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 ('List') and resource ('monthly invoices'), and identifies the tool as a compatibility alias of cloud_invoice_list. This lets an agent place it relative to the canonical sibling, though it does not explain why one would choose this alias over cloud_invoice_list.

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 labels itself a compatibility alias, which implies interchangeable use with cloud_invoice_list, but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisites. Alternatives are not discussed beyond the alias reference.

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