Xác thực OTP và tạo tài khoản ảo ACB

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only explains that the OTP comes from the user's phone and that user consent is required, but it does not disclose that the tool creates an ACB virtual account (only the title mentions this), nor what happens on invalid OTP, whether the OTP is single-use, or what side effects occur. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating operation.

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 and front-loaded with the step number and the critical instruction, and it repeats the message in Vietnamese and English for clarity. The repetition is purposeful in a bilingual tool, so there is minimal waste, though the same information is essentially given twice.

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 should explain what the call accomplishes and what the agent can expect in response. It does not state success/failure behavior, return values, or what step 3/4 entails. The agent is left without a complete picture of the call's outcome.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful value for the 'code' parameter by stating the OTP must be obtained from the user and never guessed, which is a critical semantic constraint not present in the schema. It adds nothing new for 'acb_request_id', but the overall contribution goes beyond the baseline.

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 does not explicitly state a verb+resource; it focuses on the OTP flow and the requirement to ask the user rather than saying 'verify OTP and create ACB virtual account'. The title does provide that purpose, and the step-2/4 context implies the operation, but the description itself is vague about the tool's actual action.

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 explicit precondition and prohibition: the agent MUST ask the user before calling and must never guess the OTP. It also positions the call as step 2 of 4, which clarifies when in the flow it should be used. However, it does not name or contrast alternative/sibling tools such as monapay_notification_verify_otp, so it stops short of fully explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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