Lịch sử gửi webhook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that each log entry contains the HTTP code, response time, and error label of a send attempt, which is genuinely useful behavioral context for a read-only list tool. However, it does not disclose pagination defaults/limits, date-range semantics, or explicitly confirm these are outgoing delivery attempts to configured webhooks.

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 two short clauses totaling well under 20 words, with the core concept ('webhook delivery logs') front-loaded in English followed by the richer Vietnamese detail. The bilingual repetition is mildly redundant but each clause is compact, specific, and scannable.

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 simple 5-parameter read-only list tool, the description conveys the core return content (HTTP code, response time, error label), which partially offsets the missing output schema. It omits pagination behavior, to_date format, whether logs span all configured webhooks, and the default state of the status filter, so an agent still faces small but real ambiguities.

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?

Only from_date ('YYYY-MM-DD') is documented in the schema, so coverage is 20%; the description compensates with nothing — it names no parameter and explains no filter or pagination semantics. page, limit, status, and to_date meanings must be inferred from their names, and the to_date format is left unspecified.

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 specifies both the resource ('webhook delivery logs') and the content of each record ('HTTP code, response time, error label'), clearly identifying this as a list of individual delivery attempts. It is implicitly distinguishable from monapay_list_webhooks (webhook configurations) and monapay_webhook_stats (aggregate statistics) by subject matter, though it never names them.

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?

No when-to-use guidance appears anywhere in the description — it does not say when to prefer this over monapay_webhook_stats or monapay_list_webhooks, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer routing from the tool name and the terse content list.

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