Alias cũ của cloud_prices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the most important behavioral fact — 'Alias tương thích' (compatible alias) means this tool behaves identically to cloud_prices. But it provides nothing beyond that: no indication of what the operation does, no read-only/mutation hints, no auth or output-format info, forcing the agent to dereference cloud_prices for actual behavior. Useful but thin.

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 two-clause sentence with zero filler: identity is front-loaded ('Alias tương thích') followed immediately by actionable routing guidance. Every word earns its place for a deprecation notice.

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 0-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential facts an agent needs to avoid mis-selection: it is an alias, and new integrations should target cloud_prices. It is complete enough that an agent will correctly route itself, though the actual return semantics must be learned from the sibling tool's definition.

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 tool has 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage trivially, so there is nothing for the description to add — the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies. No parameter meaning is needed beyond the empty 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 identifies the tool as a compatible alias of cloud_prices, which effectively states its identity and function for an alias-type tool. It names the canonical resource (cloud_prices) and is not a tautology — 'vibecloud_prices' alone would not tell an agent it is an alias. It stops short of describing what the underlying operation actually does (e.g., listing prices), so it is not a 5.

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 explicitly names the alternative (cloud_prices) and the condition for choosing it ('dùng cloud_prices cho tích hợp mới' — use cloud_prices for new integrations), which is clear routing guidance. However, the when-to-use-this-tool case (legacy integrations relying on the alias) is only implied, not stated explicitly, so it lacks the full when/when-not symmetry of a 5.

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