Xác minh địa chỉ nhận email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly mandates asking the user and forbids guessing the code, which guards against a likely agent hallucination failure mode — valuable behavior beyond the schema's simple 6-digit pattern. It does not disclose failure semantics (wrong/expired code behavior), but the core interaction constraint is well covered.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action and protocol front-loaded: verification with the exact 6-digit code comes first, followed by the behavioral constraint. The bilingual Vietnamese/English repetition is mildly redundant for an agent consuming the text, but each section is compact 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?

For a simple 3-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential facts: what the code is, where it comes from, and how the agent must behave during the interaction. It does not mention what happens after successful verification (e.g., permanent verification status) or error handling, but these are minor gaps given the schema's full parameter documentation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a small increment of meaning to the 'code' parameter by specifying its origin (read from the mailbox, supplied by the user) and the mandate not to guess it, which the schema's brief 'Mã 6 số do người dùng cung cấp' does not fully convey. email and config_id are already fully documented in 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 states a specific verb ('verify') with a clear resource ('a recipient' / email address) and the exact method (the exact 6-digit code the user reads from the mailbox). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like monapay_resend_email_verification (which resends codes) and monapay_create_email_config (which creates configs).

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 instruction 'phải hỏi người dùng và không tự đoán mã' (must ask the user and never guess) gives an implied trigger — call only when the user has supplied a code — and an implicit exclusion (never call to guess). However, it does not name the obvious alternative (monapay_resend_email_verification) for when the user never received a code, so use-vs-alternative guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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