purchase_utility_defect_scanGet the $149 Stripe checkout link for a single-property utility and telecom defect scan. The signed link receipt explicitly records payment_status=not_paid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| property_summary | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt | Yes | ||
| instruction | No | ||
| checkout_url | Yes | ||
| payment_status | Yes | ||
| service_reserved | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which already set a safety baseline. The description adds important behavioral context by stating that the 'signed link receipt explicitly records payment_status=not_paid,' clarifying that no actual payment is collected and adding price information.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Get the $149 Stripe checkout link...'). Every sentence contributes relevant information without unnecessary 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 simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers key facts: price, checkout link, and receipt status. However, it lacks guidance on the property_summary parameter and does not relate this tool to siblings, so it is not fully complete for an agent deciding how to invoke it.
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 has one parameter, property_summary, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess what should go in it. The parameter name gives a slight hint, but the description adds no semantic value.
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 starts with 'Get the $149 Stripe checkout link for a single-property utility and telecom defect scan,' providing a specific verb, resource, scope, and price. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like utility_defect_preflight and verify_action_receipt by focusing on purchasing.
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 usage is implied rather than explicit. It says 'Get the... checkout link' but does not mention when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (preflight or verify receipt), nor does it provide any 'when not to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: triaging permit/inspection rows, purchasing a defect scan, preflighting utility claims, and verifying receipts. No overlap or ambiguity in their roles.
Tool names are predominantly snake_case with verb_noun structure (purchase_utility_defect_scan, verify_action_receipt), but one name (permit_inspection_exception_watchlist) is a compound noun rather than verb-led. Minor deviation from an otherwise consistent pattern.
With 4 tools, the server is tightly scoped to its reliability niche. Each tool addresses a specific step or concern, and the count feels neither sparse nor bloated.
The tools cover a clear workflow (preflight, purchase, verify), and the watchlist addresses a distinct concern. Minor gap: there is no tool to actually execute the defect scan or retrieve results, but the purchase link may serve that purpose externally.