Have It Printed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses exact-charge behavior, no-human/no-browser execution, the requires_user_action fallback instead of bypassing authentication, and the prohibition on reusable credentials.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, precondition, and security/edge-case behavior are packed into four sentences with no filler. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter payment completion tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs before calling: token requirements, charge amount, bank-auth failure mode, and what not to pass. No critical precondition appears omitted.

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 coverage is only 50% because job_handle has no description. The description compensates substantially for payment_authorization by defining token type, issuer, required maximum, and charging behavior. job_handle is only implied via 'the job' and reference to hip_prepare_payment, leaving a small inferential gap.

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?

Begins with specific verb 'Pay' and resource 'the job', and immediately specifies mechanism: delegated payment authorization, no browser, no human step. It also references hip_prepare_payment, distinguishing it from sibling payment workflow tools.

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?

States explicit preconditions: payment_authorization must be an spt_ token granted to Have It Printed with a maximum covering the hip_prepare_payment total, and HIP charges exactly that total. Also provides strong when-not guidance: never send card data and do not bypass bank authentication.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses the main side effect (creating a checkout session), explicitly clarifies that payment is not captured by this tool, and points to where payment actually occurs. It could add details about state changes or duplicate-session behavior, but the critical safety-relevant boundary is clearly stated.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and outcome, followed by the key negation and a workflow cue. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what it creates, what it returns, what it does not do, and the recommended preceding step. It is slightly short on edge-case or state-change details, but it is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in the basic flow.

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 coverage is 50%: customer_email is already documented in the schema, and the description only loosely refers to the job via 'for the job'. It does not elaborate on job_handle format or semantics, nor does it mention customer_email. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for 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 ('Create a Stripe Checkout session'), a specific resource ('for the job'), and a concrete return value ('return its URL'). It also clearly distinguishes this tool from payment-taking siblings by explicitly saying it does NOT take payment.

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 clear workflow context: show the quote first, create checkout, and let the customer pay at the returned URL. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the 'does NOT take payment' clarification and 'Show them the quote first' instruction make the intended sequencing clear.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the call creates nothing chargeable and returns an opaque handle, which are key behavioral traits. It does not mention idempotency or error behavior, but for a zero-parameter create operation it gives solid transparency.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and immediately follows with the most important return-value and side-effect information.

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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains what it does, what it returns, and that it has no immediate charge impact. It could add workflow sequencing relative to siblings, but the job_handle statement largely covers the caller's needs.

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 input schema is empty and schema description coverage is 100%, so parameter documentation needs no compensation. The description adds no parameter details, but none exist; the baseline for zero parameters applies.

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 and resource: 'Start a print-and-mail job.' It further distinguishes the tool by stating it returns an opaque job_handle used by every later call, which clearly separates it from checkout, payment, and quote siblings.

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 this is the initial step in a multi-call workflow by stating the returned job_handle is 'used by every later call.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It contributes one substantive behavioral insight — the tool sources truth from the Stripe webhook-created order record and deliberately ignores browser redirect state — which is genuinely useful. However, it does not disclose whether the call is read-only, what happens when no order record exists yet, whether there is eventual-consistency lag after the webhook fires, or what the return value looks like.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler: the core purpose is front-loaded ('Whether the customer has paid yet') and the authoritative-source caveat follows immediately. Every clause earns its place, making this an excellent example of economical, well-ordered prose.

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 1-parameter tool this is close to adequate, but significant gaps remain: the return shape is undisclosed (boolean? status string? null?), edge behavior when the webhook order record is absent is not covered, and job_handle is underdescribed. Additionally, no disambiguation from hip_get_order, which may expose related payment data, is provided — though the tool's low complexity keeps the damage contained.

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% and the description never mentions job_handle — no format, provenance, or example is given. The sole parameter's name is fairly self-explanatory within the tool family as a job identifier, which softens the gap, but the description adds zero parameter-level meaning and does not compensate for the empty schema as required by the low-coverage baseline.

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 answers a concrete question — 'Whether the customer has paid yet' — identifying the resource as checkout/payment status and giving it a specific semantic tied to Stripe's webhook order record. It avoids tautology and conveys real meaning, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'gets' or 'returns' and never names a sibling, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 provides a useful context signal: payment truth comes from the order record Stripe's webhook creates, never from a browser redirect. This tells an agent where authoritative payment state lives and implicitly warns against trusting redirect-based signals, but no sibling tool is named and no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use condition is stated — usage must be inferred.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state what the tool returns (status and USPS tracking), which is useful, but it does not describe side effects, error behavior, prerequisites, or response details. Acceptable for a getter, but not rich.

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?

One short sentence with no filler. The output focus is front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.

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?

Given the tool has only one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what is returned and to which job it applies. It could mention what happens when no paid order exists, but this is a minor gap for such a simple tool.

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 compensate. It partially does by linking the sole parameter to 'this job', making it clear that job_handle identifies the job whose paid order is being queried. It does not define the handle format or how to obtain it, but the single self-explanatory parameter keeps this adequate.

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 clearly identifies the resource: status and USPS tracking for the paid order belonging to a job. It is distinct from sibling tools like hip_get_checkout_status because it refers to the paid order, not the checkout process. It lacks an explicit verb but the intent is unmistakable.

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 the paid order belonging to this job' gives clear context: use this when you need order-level status or USPS tracking after payment, tied to the job identified by job_handle. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the scope is clear enough.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It at least reveals that calling the tool requires no account and implies a read-only informational operation. It does not describe response format, caching, or rate limits, but for a parameterless public info lookup that is a relatively minor gap.

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 two short sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the content topics, and the second adds the access constraint. Both sentences earn their place, and the structure is easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 parameterless public info endpoint, the description covers the returned information scope and the access model. Since there is no output schema or nested objects, the description is nearly complete, though a brief note about using this for general service info rather than personalized quotes would fully close the loop.

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 already fully captures this with an empty properties object. There is no parameter meaning for the description to add, so the baseline 4 for a zero-parameter tool applies.

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 specifies the resource (Have It Printed service information) and enumerates its content: what the service does, costs, accepted file types/sizes, and mailing behavior. Though the description lacks an explicit verb, the tool name 'get_service_info' supplies the action, and the informational topic clearly distinguishes it from transactional siblings like payments, checkout, and job creation.

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 states that the tool is public and requires no account, which is useful guidance for when this endpoint is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with siblings such as hip_quote, leaving the boundary between general cost information and job-specific quotes implicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the URL is short-lived, requires PUT, and is subject to website file limits—useful. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior, or what happens when limits are violated.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the PUT instruction earns its place as a necessary behavioral detail. It is concise without sacrificing clarity.

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?

The core action is clear, but an agent cannot confidently call this tool without understanding job_handle and content_type semantics. There is no output schema or annotation to fill the gap, so the description is not complete enough for correct invocation. The file-limit note is helpful but insufficient.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. 'job_handle' is never mentioned, and 'filename' and 'content_type' receive no semantic guidance. The description completely fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the action ('Get a short-lived upload URL') and the resource ('customer's document'), and adds the concrete instruction to PUT bytes to it. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are payment/checkout/job operations.

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 when to use it (before uploading a customer document) and gives a constraint (file type/size limits same as website), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Since none of the siblings overlap functionally, this is a moderate gap rather than a serious one.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly says this does NOT charge anything, returns a pricing fingerprint, commits the job to the autonomous payment rail, and can refuse payment with QUOTE_STALE if inputs change. These are meaningful side-effect and staleness disclosures.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: the no-charge guarantee, return fields, tax caveat, staleness binding, and usage context are all actionable. It is front-loaded with the most critical fact that this call does not charge anything.

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?

Even without an output schema or annotations, the description covers the return values, the no-op on charging, the side effect of committing to the autonomous payment rail, the staleness condition, and the target audience. An agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool correctly and understand the consequences.

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 schema only provides a bare job_handle string with 0% description coverage, but the description compensates reasonably by tying the returned total to 'this job's documents, options and recipient,' making it clear that job_handle references the job being prepared for payment. It also clarifies that the job's current state is what determines the amount.

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 and resource: 'Resolve the EXACT amount HIP will charge' before any payment authorization is obtained or spent. It clearly distinguishes itself from hip_quote by stating hip_quote alone is not the payable amount, and from the human-browser checkout flow.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when paying autonomously with a delegated payment authorization; a human paying in a browser does not need it.' It also warns that changing job documents, options, or recipient makes the quote stale and requires calling prepare again.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that tax is not included in the quote but is added later by Stripe at payment, and that the price matches checkout pricing. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, but the quote semantics make that largely inferable.

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, with the main pricing statement first and the tax caveat second. No words are wasted, though adding a verb would make it stronger.

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 one-parameter quote tool this is mostly sufficient: it states the return value (exact price), the pricing source, and the tax handling. However, without annotations or an output schema, it would benefit from an explicit 'does not charge' statement and a note on where job_handle comes from.

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 schema provides no description for job_handle (0% coverage), and the description only refers to 'the job' without explaining what a job_handle is, where it comes from, or its format. Since the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation, this is a gap.

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 clearly conveys that the tool returns an exact price for a job and notes that it uses the same pricing as the website checkout. This is more specific than a tautology, but it does not use a clear imperative verb like 'get' or 'quote' and does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as hip_create_checkout or hip_get_service_info.

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 'same pricing the website checkout uses' and tax-at-payment phrasing imply this is for retrieving a pre-payment quote, but the description never states when to prefer hip_quote over hip_create_checkout, hip_prepare_payment, or hip_get_order. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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

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

The description discloses a notable behavioral trait: 'Price fields are rejected: the server computes all amounts.' This is valuable because it tells the agent that price-related inputs are not accepted and the server will handle pricing. However, with no annotations at all, the description does not clarify other important behaviors like whether the update replaces or merges existing documents/options, or whether the job must be in a draft state.

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 a single, dense sentence that conveys the core purpose and includes a critical constraint. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given four parameters including nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain whether the update is additive or a full replacement, what 'print options' are valid, whether recipient is optional, or what the server response looks like. The single behavioral hint about pricing is helpful but leaves many operational questions unanswered.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It maps the three major parameter groups (files, options, recipient) to 'documents, print options and US mailing recipient', but it does not explain field-level semantics, such as how files are structured (e.g., pages required, size/color enums), what keys options may contain, or which recipient fields are required. This is a high-level gloss rather than useful parameter guidance.

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 clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'a job', and enumerates the specific attributes being modified: documents, print options, and US mailing recipient. It is distinct from the sibling tools by virtue of the update framing, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like hip_create_job or hip_quote. The phrase 'on a job' implies an existing job, but no prerequisites, sequencing, or exclusions are given.

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