checkout_linkFor this session's cart (or one product), the link(s) where a PERSON completes the purchase: the product page and the store's cart for own products (Seating Co's own checkout), the retailer's buy link for affiliate products. This server never places an order or takes a payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | No | one product instead of the cart |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well by explicitly declaring that this server never places an order or takes a payment, framing the tool as a human handoff. It also distinguishes the link types returned. It does not mention link expiry, auth needs, or rate limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.
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 purpose and the critical 'never charges' disclaimer are front-loaded in two compact sentences with no filler. The colon-heavy listing of link variants makes it slightly dense, but nothing is wasted.
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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the definition covers what the tool returns (checkout links by product type) and the key safety guarantee. It is complete enough to call correctly, missing only secondary details like link lifetime or session requirements.
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 baseline would be 3, but the description adds the meaningful default behavior: with no parameter the tool acts on the current session cart, and providing one narrows it to a single product. That default-vs-override distinction is not stated in the schema.
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 verb-plus-resource outcome: it returns the link(s) where a human completes a purchase, for either the session cart or a single product. It clarifies what the links point to (own product page / own cart vs. affiliate retailer buy link), which sharply separates it from browse/cart/product siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it substitutes for.
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?
Usage context is implied rather than stated: the tool is for obtaining where a person finishes checkout, and the product parameter selects a single item instead of the cart. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative among the siblings, so the agent must infer routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.