Xác minh địa chỉ nhận email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses input provenance and the no-guessing constraint, but says nothing about failure behavior, retry/attempt limits, idempotency, or what a successful verification changes for the recipient — meaningful gaps for a state-changing verification call.

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 short sentences with the constraint front-loaded and zero filler; the only cost is the duplicated Vietnamese/English rendering, which is defensible for i18n but doubles the surface text.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral context, and it omits what a success or failure returns and how errors should be surfaced. For a three-required-parameter verification mutation it is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about outcomes.

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 100%, so the schema already documents code, email and config_id; the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the code is user-supplied and exactly 6 digits, but adds no format or provenance detail for email or config_id beyond what the schema already states.

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 (verify) and resource (a recipient / pending email address) plus the exact credential required (the 6-digit code). It is distinguishable from the OTP-verify siblings (monapay_notification_verify_otp, monapay_link_bank_verify_otp) by naming the recipient email context, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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?

Gives a concrete operating rule: the code must be supplied by the user and must never be guessed, which tells the agent how to obtain the input before calling. It stops short of stating when to use this versus monapay_resend_email_verification (e.g. when no code has arrived) or when verification is not appropriate.

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