Bat dau nhan tien: kiem tra trang thai va cac buoc tiep theo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it says what is checked (bank linked, VA present, webhook configured) and what is returned (next steps + recipe). It stops short of stating that the call is read-only with no side effects and requires no permissions setup, which would fully close the gap.

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?

Content is front-loaded and the key action ('call this first') leads. However, the entire description is duplicated verbatim in Vietnamese and English, roughly doubling length without adding informational value for a single reader.

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 zero-parameter onboarding/router tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger intent, ordering, and the shape of the return (state check + next steps + recipe). The main remaining gap is not clarifying that the call has no side effects, but overall it is sufficient to invoke correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. No parameter meaning needs to be conveyed, and the description correctly focuses on behavior instead.

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 function: it is the entry point for the 'receive bank transfers' intent, checks account state (bank/VA/webhook), and returns concrete next steps plus an end-to-end recipe. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like monapay_me, monapay_list_bank_accounts, or monapay_list_webhooks, which only report a single slice of state.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call this tool FIRST ('Goi tool nay TRUOC') for the receive-transfers intent, giving clear ordering guidance. It does not name specific alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, but the 'before anything else' framing covers the main routing decision.

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