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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the async contract (returns task_key, must poll) and concrete rate limits (about 10/min established, 2/min new). destructiveHint=true is set but the description neither explains nor contradicts it. The rate-limit and polling behavior is exactly the kind of context annotations don't carry.

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?

Front-loads the action and result, then the follow-up tool, then the rate limit, then the endpoint. Three compact clauses with no filler.

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 complex 10-param, nested-schema tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return contract (task_key) and the required follow-up call. It omits any hint about the files-vs-product_template_id choice, but the schema handles the details.

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 schema already documents all 10 parameters including nested file/position objects. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Start generating product mockups for a design on a catalog product') and names the sibling tool it hands off to (printful_get_mockup_task). An agent can distinguish this from the read-side mockup tool without opening either schema.

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?

Explains the async workflow ('returns a task_key; poll printful_get_mockup_task for the images'), which tells the agent this is a fire-and-poll tool rather than a synchronous one. It does not state when to prefer this over alternatives or any preconditions, but the follow-up routing is explicit.

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