Lấy một phiên thanh toán

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns authoritative status/details and positions it as a server-side verification step, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what happens for invalid or expired checkout IDs.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a practical usage note. The bilingual repetition is acceptable in this context and every sentence earns its place.

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, so the description's mention of 'status and details' is the main return-value information, which is broad but adequate for a simple single-parameter get-by-ID tool. It also supplies the important integration context of checking server-side before delivery. It omits possible status values or error behavior, but those are not critical for basic 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 100% and the only parameter, checkout_id, is already documented as 'ID phiên thanh toán' (payment session ID). The description merely repeats 'by ID' without adding format details, constraints, or guidance on where to obtain the ID, so it adds no meaningful value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'get', the resource 'checkout', and the scope 'by ID', and additionally says it returns status and details. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like monapay_create_checkout, monapay_list_checkouts, and monapay_cancel_checkout.

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 a concrete usage context: 'should check server-side before shipping/delivery', which tells the agent when this tool is the right choice. It does not explicitly rule out alternatives or compare with monapay_list_checkouts, but the before-delivery scenario is a clear signal.

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