check_availabilityCheck whether a plan can be fulfilled right now for a given quantity, using the same gate the checkout runs. Returns available true/false; reason 'delisted' means the SKU left the catalog, 'unavailable' means it temporarily cannot be fulfilled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quantity | No | Units to buy (default 1, max 10). | |
| package_code | Yes | The plan's package_code from search_plans. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description contradicts annotations: reads 'right now' implying real-time state, but openWorldHint=false indicates the tool may not reflect current world state. This is a serious inconsistency.
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 sentences with no fluff: first states purpose and context, second explains return values and reason codes. Highly efficient.
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?
Input parameters are fully covered by schema (100%). Description explains return format (available true/false, reason) despite no output schema. Lacks mention of default quantity, but overall complete for a simple check 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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 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?
Clear verb 'Check' + specific resource 'plan availability'. Description distinguishes from siblings (get_plan, get_quote, search_plans) by focusing on real-time fulfillment gate. Explains return values and two reason codes.
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 when to use: to check if a plan can be fulfilled right now using the same checkout gate. No explicit when-not or alternatives mentioned, but the purpose is sufficiently scoped and distinct from siblings.
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.
All tools have distinct purposes: check_availability checks fulfillment, get_plan fetches details, get_quote prices orders, and search_plans searches the catalog. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (check_availability, get_plan, get_quote, search_plans), making them predictable.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for a catalog/quoting service. Each tool adds clear value without being too few or too many.
The tool set covers search, detail retrieval, availability, and pricing – core pre-purchase operations. Order creation is missing, but the server may be intended only for quoting.