Danh sách tài khoản ngân hàng đã nối

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 does disclose the core behavior—listing linked bank accounts—and 'list' inherently suggests a read-only operation. However, it does not mention whether any authentication is needed, what the response structure looks like, or whether only active accounts are returned.

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 appropriately brief and front-loaded, with the key action and resource in the first words. The bilingual repetition is slightly redundant but not excessive, and the example 'ACB…' adds a useful hint about the account type.

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, zero-parameter, read-only list operation, the description is largely complete. It clearly states what is listed and the context. Since there is no output schema, the description could have mentioned the return format, but the basic invocation context is clear enough for an agent.

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 zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because the description cannot add anything beyond the schema when no parameters exist.

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 uses a specific verb ('Liệt kê'/'List') with a clear resource ('tài khoản ngân hàng'/'bank accounts'), and explicitly scopes it to accounts linked to MONA Pay. The mention of 'ACB…' and 'bank accounts' distinguishes it from sibling tools like monapay_list_virtual_accounts and monapay_list_transactions.

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 implies usage: use it when you need the list of linked bank accounts. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or what to use instead, and there are similar sibling list tools (virtual accounts, transactions) that could be confused without further differentiation.

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