Service estimate summary card with external action link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| estimate | No | The time, in hours, estimated to complete the job. | |
| work_items | No | Optional list of tasks/scope items for the job. | |
| service_code | Yes | The slug of the service to create a service estimate card for. Use a code from list_services (e.g. electrical, plumbing, heating_and_gas). | |
| booking_description | Yes | A description of the work to be completed. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations are uninformative (all false), so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It fails to disclose side effects, return values, or the nature of the 'external action link'. There is no contradiction, but the description adds no meaningful behavioral context.
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 short sentence, making it concise. However, it is so under-specified that it sacrifices clarity, providing only a vague noun phrase rather than an actionable definition. It is concise but not effectively informative.
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?
With no output schema and a minimal description, the tool's behavior and return structure are completely unexplained. The agent cannot infer what the tool will produce, what the 'external action link' refers to, or how to handle the result. The description is inadequate for the tool's 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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but that baseline is sufficient given the high schema coverage.
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 identifies the resource as a 'service estimate summary card' and mentions an 'external action link', giving a general sense of the tool's output. However, it lacks a clear action verb (e.g., 'creates', 'displays', 'returns') and does not differentiate it from sibling tools beyond a generic card representation.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus list_services or call_out_fee. There are no trigger conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.
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.
The tools have distinct purposes: call_out_fee retrieves a fee, list_services retrieves available services, and service-estimate-card generates an estimate summary card. However, service-estimate-card is somewhat vague and could be confused with a general output tool, but it doesn't overlap with the other two.
Tool names use mixed conventions: call_out_fee and list_services are snake_case, while service-estimate-card uses hyphens. Additionally, list_services follows a verb_noun pattern, but the other two are noun phrases, making the naming inconsistent.
With 3 tools, the server is minimal but reasonably scoped for an estimator that provides fee and service info. It is slightly thin but not unreasonable for a focused purpose.
The server covers fee lookup, service listing, and estimate card generation, but lacks tools for creating bookings or detailed estimate calculations. There are potential gaps in the workflow, though the core informational needs are addressed.
