Tạo link thu tiền

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important behavioral trait: confirmation is asynchronous via the CHECKOUT_PAID webhook, so fulfilment must wait. It omits other relevant traits for a mutation tool such as auth/permission needs, whether the link expires by default, and what the caller receives 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?

Two compact sentences in a Vietnamese/English pair, with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The bilingual duplication doubles the character count without adding information, which slightly works against pure conciseness.

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 12-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only the headline purpose plus the webhook wait. It says nothing about sandbox vs live mode, idempotency, URL/expiry fields, or metadata, so an agent must infer most of the contract from the schema alone.

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 only 25% across 12 parameters, so most fields (return_url, cancel_url, expires_in, metadata, virtual_account_id, payer_*) are opaque. The description adds no parameter-level meaning to compensate, leaving the majority of the surface undocumented.

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 and resource ('Tạo link thu tiền / Create a hosted checkout link'), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from write-side siblings like monapay_create_qr. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tools or contrasting the hosted-link flow against QR-based collection.

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 gives downstream workflow context ('đưa link cho khách hoặc chuyển hướng checkout; đợi webhook CHECKOUT_PAID trước khi giao hàng'), i.e. deliver or redirect, then wait for the webhook before fulfilment. This is useful implied usage but it never states when to prefer this over monapay_create_qr, nor any preconditions/exclusions.

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