get_designFull details for one design: price, available sizes, shipping cost, delivery time, return policy and the order URL. Takes the id from search_designs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Design id, e.g. '4ddb7882'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It lists the return fields (price, sizes, shipping, delivery, return policy, order URL), giving a clear expectation of what the tool returns. Does not mention error behavior or side effects, but as a simple get, this is reasonable.
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, front-loaded with 'Full details for one design' and a concise list of contained fields. No fluff, every word is useful.
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 simple get tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the key return fields and the source of the required id. This is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 already describes the id parameter fully with an example (100% coverage). The description adds extra context by explaining where the id comes from ('Takes the id from search_designs'), which helps the agent correctly populate the parameter.
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?
Clearly states it retrieves full details for one design, listing specific fields (price, sizes, shipping, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings: search_designs returns search results and design_link likely provides only a link.
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?
Provides usage context by stating 'Takes the id from search_designs', indicating it should be used after searching and that the id comes from that sibling tool. Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the workflow is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct function: design_link initiates a new custom design, search_designs finds existing published designs, and get_design retrieves detailed information for a specific design. There is no overlapping purpose, and their relationships are clearly defined (search returns IDs that get_design consumes).
Two tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_design, search_designs), but design_link breaks this pattern as it reads as a noun phrase rather than a verb-driven action. The style is readable but not uniformly consistent.
With 3 tools, the server is at the low end of the typical well-scoped range. Each tool earns its place, covering search, detail retrieval, and creation initiation. The count feels appropriately minimal for the narrow purpose.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle: discover existing designs (search), inspect details (get), and create new ones (design_link). Minor gaps exist such as no explicit update/delete for designs, but these are not expected in this service-oriented context. The order URL in get_design and the handoff to the human in design_link address the remaining steps.