Lịch sử gửi nhóm Zalo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a lookup/filter operation but does not state the return format, pagination behavior, whether results are limited to a specific Zalo group, or any other side effects or limitations.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It could be slightly more structured by mapping behavior to parameters, but it is appropriately brief for a simple logs-lookup tool.

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 two-optional-parameter log retrieval tool, the description conveys the core purpose and the status filter. However, with no output schema and no return-value explanation, the agent is left to infer what the response contains and how the 'limit' parameter behaves.

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 0%, so the description needed to explain both parameters. It only paraphrases the status filter ('lọc trạng thái thành công hoặc thất bại'), which largely restates the enum, and it says nothing about the 'limit' parameter or its default behavior.

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 action, 'Tra lịch sử gửi vào nhóm Zalo' (query send history to Zalo groups), with a clear resource and filter behavior. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like monapay_list_zalo_groups, though it does not explicitly name the alternative it is not.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools such as monapay_email_logs, monapay_webhook_logs, or monapay_list_zalo_groups. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria provided.

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