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 (Slumber Direct'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 must carry the behavioral burden, and it does the most important part: it explicitly declares the server never places an order or takes a payment, ruling out any side effect. It does not cover auth requirements, link expiry, or whether affiliate links are tracked, 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?
It is a single tightly packed sentence plus a short safety clause, front-loaded with the deliverable and then the variants. Slightly dense with parentheticals, but no sentence 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool returns (product page, own store cart link, affiliate buy link) and what it explicitly does not do, which is the key ambiguity for a link-producing tool. Auth, expiry, and rate-limit behavior remain unaddressed but are secondary for this handoff-style 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% and the single parameter's description ("one product instead of the cart") is already fully documented in the schema. The description mirrors that same meaning ("or one product") without adding format, ID, or identifier guidance, so the baseline 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?
The description states a specific deliverable: the link(s) where a human completes checkout, for the session cart or a single product. It also differentiates the two link sources (own checkout via Slumber Direct vs retailer buy link for affiliates), which lets an agent understand the output without opening anything else. It stops short of naming which sibling tool to use instead for other checkout-related needs.
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 is implied through the scope statement ("for this session's cart (or one product)"), which tells an agent the tool operates on the current cart unless a product is supplied. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternative guidance and no named sibling to route to, so it lands at minimum-viable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.