Gửi lại thông báo của một giao dịch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior—re-sending a webhook/Telegram notification—but it does not mention side effects such as duplicate delivery, prerequisites, or whether the action is reversible. This is enough for the core action but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 description is a single direct sentence repeated in Vietnamese and English, with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple retry operation.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only covers the general purpose. It omits the meaning of target_id, the default target_type behavior, and what the response indicates about success or failure, so an agent has to guess at a non-trivial part of invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It maps target_type to 'webhook/Telegram' and transaction_id to 'transaction', but it says nothing about target_id, the default target_type behavior, or what happens when target_id is omitted. This leaves important invocation details 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 action ('Re-send') and a specific resource scope ('webhook/Telegram for a transaction'), which is distinct from sibling tools like monapay_test_webhook or monapay_sandbox_transaction. The bilingual text reinforces the same clear purpose.

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 phrase 'cho giao dịch đã có / for a transaction' implies the tool is for existing transactions, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling would be a better alternative for testing or creating notifications.

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