Tạo link thu tiền

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the critical async trait: payment completes via webhook later, not synchronously, so fulfilment must wait for CHECKOUT_PAID. It does not mention response shape, cancel semantics, or side effects, but the most important behavioral caveat is present.

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 in each language, with purpose front-loaded and the webhook caution following. Every clause carries distinct information, though the bilingual duplication roughly doubles length without adding content.

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 tool with 12 parameters, 3 required fields, nested metadata, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not state the response contract (though 'checkout link' implies a URL), explain how required parameters interact, or clarify sandbox-vs-live usage, leaving an agent under-informed for a complex call.

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% (amount, sandbox, metadata, and idempotency_key have schema descriptions; 8 parameters do not). The description mentions no parameters at all, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap, leaving amount, order_code, return_url, expires_in, payer fields, and virtual_account_id semantics 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 uses a specific verb+resource pair: 'Create a hosted checkout link' (Tạo link thu tiền). It clearly identifies what the tool produces and distinguishes it from sibling payment tools like monapay_create_qr and monapay_cancel_checkout by resource type, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 description gives clear usage context: give the link to the customer or redirect them to checkout, and wait for the CHECKOUT_PAID webhook before fulfilment. This is explicit operational guidance, but it does not state exclusions or name alternative tools for other payment scenarios.

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