Công cụ MONA invoice pdf

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the PDF lands in a private temporary file, the call returns a path, and the file is ephemeral and may be reaped by the OS. It does not cover auth/permission requirements or size limits, so it is not a 5.

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 alias statement and the temp-file caveat are front-loaded and earn their place, but every sentence is duplicated in Vietnamese and English, roughly doubling the payload for the same information. Efficient in content, wasteful in form.

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 output schema, the description correctly explains the return value (a path) and its lifecycle, which is the key thing an agent needs. It leaves invoice_id sourcing and error/failure behavior undocumented, so for a required-parameter tool it is only minimally complete.

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% for the single required parameter invoice_id, and the description never mentions it, its format, or where to obtain it. Despite the parameter being somewhat self-describing by name, the description does nothing to compensate for the total absence of schema documentation.

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 and resource ('Tải PDF hoá đơn' / download invoice PDF) and explicitly identifies itself as the compatibility alias of cloud_invoice_pdf, which is present in the sibling list. An agent can immediately tell what it does and how it relates to the canonical tool.

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 alias framing tells the agent this is interchangeable with cloud_invoice_pdf, and it adds an operational caveat ('sao chép ra nơi cần giữ trước khi hệ điều hành dọn' / copy before the OS cleans up). It stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not rule or a prerequisite such as a prior invoice_list call.

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