Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: sizes are capped by scan resolution (100 PPI minimum) and prices bundle frame and shipping but exclude tax, which is added at checkout. That is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the pricing caveat (tax at checkout) is the kind of detail that prevents a wrong answer and it earns its place.

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 only one fully documented parameter, the description carries the return-value burden and does it reasonably well by summarizing sizes, frames, prices, and the resolution constraint. It could go slightly further on what happens when no print options exist for a work.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the accepted id forms (slug, en-dash id, /w/ URL, title, accession, NASA ID) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the work parameter, so the baseline 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 concretely what the tool returns for one work: the sizes, frame options, and prices the site offers. That is clear verb+resource framing and it is a read tool ('get'), but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling quote_order, which also sounds pricing-related.

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 only implied: an agent can infer you call this when you need purchasable print options for a known work. There is no statement of when not to use it and no routing to alternatives such as quote_order or get_work, which is the main gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.