Printags docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the one thing annotations don't: the return format is Markdown. It says nothing about failure behavior for bad paths, page size or truncation, or whether content is cached.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; purpose and input format come first. The nested parenthetical is slightly dense but every clause carries information, so it stays near-optimal.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only, non-open-world tool with no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs: what it does, what input shape is valid, where valid inputs come from, and the return format. Nothing material is missing at this complexity level.

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 already documents that it accepts a printags.com URL or a path starting with /. The description restates the same duality with an example path (/en/api-integration/) and adds the provenance hint (from search_printags_docs), which is modest added meaning, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Returns a page of printags.com") plus the output format (Markdown), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It references the sibling search_printags_docs as the source of valid addresses, which hints at the division of labor without fully contrasting the two.

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: the parenthetical ties the input to addresses "as returned by search_printags_docs", suggesting search first, then read. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no guidance on handling errors or pages that don't exist, and no statement that this tool never fetches external domains.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the description is free to spend its words elsewhere and does: it discloses that results include the shop's current unit prices excluding VAT, a genuinely useful behavioral detail an agent could not infer. It does not describe ranking, freshness of the non-price content, or any rate limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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, zero filler. The capability and scope come first, the use-case list second, so the agent gets the routing signal before the detail.

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, the description carries the burden of saying what comes back, and it does reasonably well by enumerating result types and noting that prices are current and VAT-excluded. It could say more about result shape or ordering, but for a three-parameter search tool nothing essential is missing.

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 limit, query and locale are already fully documented, including the English/French allowance and the 1-10 bound. The description adds no syntax, phrasing or formatting guidance for the query beyond what the schema states, 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 names a specific verb (finds) and a precisely scoped resource: pages, FAQ answers, use cases, articles and shop products of printags.com that answer a question. The retrieval-by-question framing implicitly separates it from the sibling get_printags_page, but the sibling is never named, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

"Use it for what Printags sells, how ordering works, which chips exist, prices, or how to use the API and the MCP servers" gives concrete when-to-use triggers covering the tool's whole domain. It stops short of stating when not to use it or pointing to get_printags_page for direct page retrieval, which is the one routing decision an agent still has to make unaided.

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