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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to cover side effects. It adds output semantics but no extra behavioral caveats such as empty results for non-imprintable products or rate limits. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 description is one long, dense sentence, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and each clause contributes a distinct piece of information. It is efficient, though breaking the enumeration into a list would improve scannability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden. It does so thoroughly, covering imprint methods, quantity ranges, setup charges, run charges, locations, sizes, color limits, and usage guidance. An agent has enough context to call the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, and the single product parameter is fully documented, including the exactly-one-of guidance for slug, id, or sku. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but it does not need to because the schema already carries the burden.

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 identifies a specific resource — decoration/imprint options for a product — and then enumerates the exact data returned: quantities, setup charges, run charges, locations, sizes, color limits, and usage guidance. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_product_options and search_catalog.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: whenever an agent needs to know how a product can be decorated. However, it does not explicitly state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, so an agent receives no direct routing guidance versus sibling tools.

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