Tạo VietQR động cho đơn hàng

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and partially meets it: it discloses that the QR is dynamic, pre-fills amount and content, and that scanning results in payment to a virtual account plus a MONA Pay webhook. It does not mention side effects such as idempotency, expiry, or required permissions, but the described lifecycle is material and non-obvious.

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 short and front-loaded: first sentence states the action and payload, second gives the downstream effect, third is a compact English summary. Some redundancy exists between the Vietnamese and English lines, but no filler is present.

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?

Despite a 13-parameter schema and no output schema or annotations, the description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g. QR image, URL, code), expiration behavior, or required configuration steps beyond what the schema already says. It is adequate for intent recognition but not complete enough for an agent to anticipate the full invocation result.

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 description adds mild semantic value by mapping 'số tiền + nội dung' to the amount and description parameters and by identifying that these are embedded in the QR. Schema coverage is 62%, so the schema already documents most key required fields; however, the description does not clarify the five undocumented optional parameters.

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 ('Tạo mã VietQR động'), the resource (dynamic VietQR), the target ('cho một đơn hàng'), and the payment rail (ACB). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like monapay_cancel_qr or monapay_list_virtual_accounts.

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 phrase 'cho một đơn hàng' and 'Create a dynamic VietQR for an order' gives a direct use case, and the second sentence explains the expected payment/webhook flow. It does not name alternatives or explicit exclusions, but the create/read/cancel split among siblings makes the intended scenario clear.

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