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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that no sign-in is needed, how a pack is rendered (one artboard per designable item), and the no-print-zone fallback returning selfServeMockup: false plus the product page. It omits things like rate limits or link expiry, but covers the meaningful behavioral traits an agent needs.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the usage condition and the edge-case handling. Slightly dense with em-dash asides, but every sentence carries actionable information and nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, but the description compensates by naming the selfServeMockup field and describing the two possible return shapes (deep link vs. product page). Combined with the full schema coverage of the only parameter, an agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 slug parameter is already documented in the schema as a 'Product or preset-pack permalink slug or id (from search-products)'. The description does not add format or sourcing detail beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a working Mockup Studio deep link for a product or a preset pack') and explains what the link enables (upload logo, position, download free mockup). It also distinguishes the product case from the pack case (one artboard per designable item) and implicitly routes slug retrieval to search-products.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('when someone asks how their logo would look on an item') and covers the negative case: items with no print zones return selfServeMockup: false, and the agent is told to say the team will send a proof instead of promising a self-serve mockup.

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