Gửi lại thông báo của một giao dịch

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose the core side effect: it re-sends a webhook or Telegram notification. It does not, however, mention whether repeated calls can cause duplicate deliveries, whether it resends the original payload, or any authorization/rate-limit considerations, so transparency is only partially 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?

The description is very short and front-loaded with the action and resource. It is essentially one semantic statement repeated in Vietnamese and English; the duplication is minor and unlikely to confuse. It earns its place by being scannable and direct, though the bilingual repetition adds slight redundancy.

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 an action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what happens after the resend, what errors or success responses to expect, how target_id relates to the transaction, or which contexts require a retry. An agent would need to guess about behavior and parameter meaning before invoking it correctly.

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 must explain what each parameter means, but it barely does. It loosely maps transaction_id to 'a transaction' and target_type to 'webhook/Telegram', but it does not explain target_id at all. The schema enum and default help for target_type, but target_id remains completely ambiguous, and the required parameter's format is not described.

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 ('Re-send') and a clear resource ('webhook/Telegram for a transaction'). It immediately distinguishes this tool from siblings like monapay_test_webhook, which tests a webhook, or monapay_list_webhooks, which lists webhooks. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 'for a transaction' and the 're-send' wording imply the tool is used when a notification for an existing transaction needs to be sent again. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of alternatives, when not to use it, or that it is meant for failed deliveries. Usage context is only implied, not stated.

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