Công cụ MONA plan list

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: it recommends the cheapest plan meeting the required CPU/RAM/disk and notes that admin_only plans are not auto-selected, which materially shapes what the agent gets back.

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?

Front-loaded with the alias identity and then the capability, with no filler sentences. The bilingual duplication is structural to this alias family rather than padding, though it does cost some density.

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-only list/recommendation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the recommendation behavior, and the admin_only exclusion well enough to call correctly. Missing only finer points like units and fallback behavior when requirements are omitted.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: cpu/ram_gb/disk_gb are framed as minimum requirement thresholds that drive the 'cheapest sufficient plan' recommendation. Units and behavior for partial/absent inputs remain unexplained, keeping it short of a 5.

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 ('List plans, prices and sizing recommendation') and explicitly identifies itself as the compatibility alias of cloud_plan_list. The scope ('Bảng gói cùng giá tháng/năm') helps separate it from raw pricing siblings like cloud_prices, though the alias relationship makes cloud_plan_list a near-duplicate choice rather than a fully differentiated one.

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?

Provides one real usage cue: 'Đọc trước khi duyệt chi phí' (read before approving cost), which tells the agent this is a pre-approval lookup. However it never names when-not-to-use or how it differs in practice from cloud_prices/cloud_packages, leaving the alias choice to inference.

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