Xác thực OTP lần 2 và hoàn tất nhận tiền

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a key trait: the tool completes a money-receiving flow using a code only the user possesses, and the agent must not fabricate it. However, it does not disclose the operation's side effects (finalizing/irreversibly completing the transfer), error behavior on a wrong code, or retry implications — meaningful gaps for a financial step.

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?

A single bilingual sentence, front-loaded with the critical guardrail and free of fluff; the VI/EN duplication is a deliberate localization choice, not redundancy. The step marker 'Bước 4/4 / Step 4/4' precedes the rule, placing the highest-value information first.

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 2-parameter tool with a fully documented schema, the essentials are present: what to collect (user-provided OTP plus request ID), when to call (step 4/4, only after asking), and the outcome in the title. Missing is any guidance on failure behavior — what happens if the OTP is wrong, whether retries are allowed, or that calling this completes a financial transaction — which matters more given there are no annotations and no output schema.

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% — both parameters are described with provenance (code comes from the user after receiving from ACB; acb_request_id comes from monapay_notification_register). The description adds a normative rule beyond the schema by forbidding OTP guessing and requiring user confirmation, which directly sharpens the semantics of the code parameter. Baseline 3 raised to 4 for that added constraint.

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 title states the action plainly ('Xác thực OTP lần 2 và hoàn tất nhận tiền' — verify the second OTP and complete receiving money), and the description anchors the tool as step 4/4 of a bank-OTP flow. The 'lần 2' qualifier plus the acb_request_id linkage to monapay_notification_register distinguishes it from the bank-linking OTP sibling, though not 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 an explicit invocation condition: the agent MUST ASK the user for the OTP before calling and must never guess it — a strong, actionable rule for a fraud-sensitive step. It also positions the call as step 4/4, implying it follows monapay_notification_register. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., monapay_link_bank_verify_otp for the separate bank-linking flow).

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