Generate a branded PDF audit report. Pass the complete audit JSON object and your reseller details. Returns a 24-hour download link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| audit_json | Yes | The complete audit JSON object produced during the audit pipeline. | |
| reseller_name | Yes | Your full name. | |
| reseller_email | Yes | Your contact email. | |
| reseller_position | No | Your position or title (optional). | |
| reseller_company_url | No | Your company URL (optional). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals that the tool returns a '24-hour download link', which is a useful behavioral detail not present in annotations. However, it does not mention any side effects (e.g., resource consumption, storage) or error conditions. Given annotations are all false, the description carries some burden but remains limited.
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, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a compact instruction and a clear statement of the return value. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
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 5 parameters (3 required), a nested object, and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what input to provide, and what to expect (24-hour link). It could mention prerequisites like email verification or cost, but it is adequate for this complexity.
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 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning by grouping 'reseller details' and emphasizing the 'complete audit JSON object', but this largely duplicates the schema descriptions without adding new format or syntax details.
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 tool generates a 'branded PDF audit report', using a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('PDF audit report'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on URLs, profiles, and purchases.
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 clear instructions on how to use the tool: 'Pass the complete audit JSON object and your reseller details.' It implies the tool is used after an audit is complete, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This is clear context without exclusions.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: check_url vs check_urls distinguish single vs batch, allowlist CRUD tools are separated, and profile management is distinct from account billing. Minor overlap exists between get_balance and get_stats (both report balance) and between list_profiles and show_defaults (both relate to scoring configuration), but descriptions clarify the differences.
The vast majority of tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (check_url, create_profile, list_allowlist, get_balance). A few outliers like purchase and signup are single verbs, but they are standard and do not break the overall predictability.
18 tools is above the ideal 3-15 range but appropriate for the server's broad scope: URL analysis, custom scoring profiles, allowlist management, account billing, and reporting. Each tool serves a distinct function and none feel redundant or superfluous.
The tool surface covers the core domain thoroughly: single and batch URL checks, credit estimation, profile CRUD (create, list, delete, show defaults), allowlist CRUD, history, and account management (signup, balance, pricing, purchase). Minor gaps exist, such as no delete history or direct retrieval of a single past check by ID, but these are not critical.