Đăng ký thông báo tiền vào và gửi OTP lần 2

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses a key side effect (the bank sends a second OTP to the user's phone) and sets an interaction rule (never guess the OTP). It does not mention idempotency, reversibility, permissions, or failure behavior, so it is above bare but not rich.

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 dense and front-loaded with step and purpose, and the user-querying rule is emphasized. Bilingual duplication adds a little length but remains focused with no filler.

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 one-parameter step with no output schema or annotations, the description gives the essential flow position and interaction requirement. It does not describe the return payload or explicitly list preconditions, leaving some ambiguity for an autonomous agent.

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 coverage is 100%, with the only parameter already documented as coming from monapay_link_bank_verify_otp. The description adds no additional parameter details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Step 3/4: register real-time transaction notifications' with a specific verb ('register') and resource ('real-time transaction notifications'). It also notes that the second OTP is sent by the bank, which distinguishes this registration step from subsequent verification steps.

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 'Bước 3/4 / Step 3/4' prefix positions the tool within a multi-step flow, and the explicit instruction that the agent must ask the user before calling the verification tool ('tool xác thực') gives clear usage context. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the sequencing is informative.

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