Bắt đầu nối ngân hàng ACB và gửi OTP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does well by disclosing that the OTP is sent to the user's phone and that the agent must never guess it. It also clarifies that this step registers the ACB account and VA, which is a meaningful side effect. It does not mention reversibility, permissions, or error states, but the OTP-handling disclosure is critical and well handled.

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 compact and front-loaded with the step number and purpose, followed by a critical instruction. The bilingual repetition is somewhat redundant but serves multilingual users and does not obscure the content. Every substantive piece of guidance 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?

The description covers the flow's start and the OTP expectation, but there is no output schema and the description does not say what the tool returns or what data the subsequent verification step will need. It references "the verification tool" without naming it, and it omits information about the remaining steps 2-4. For an agent to complete the multi-step flow reliably, more detail about the response and next tool would be needed.

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 fully documents all seven parameters. The description adds mild contextual value by linking the phone number to OTP delivery, but it does not explain the conditional requirements around bank_account_id, account_number, and phone_number beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb and resource: "register the ACB account and VA" as Step 1/4, and the title adds "start linking ACB bank and send OTP." It distinguishes itself from the verification sibling by explicitly framing this as the step that precedes OTP verification. This makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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 provides clear sequential guidance: this is Step 1/4, and after receiving the OTP the agent must ask the user before calling the verification tool. It implies the correct flow and warns against guessing, though it does not explicitly name the verification sibling or state when not to use this tool.

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