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

Annotations only carry readOnlyHint=true, so the description does the extra work: it discloses the task state machine (pending/completed/failed) and the fact that image URLs are only available once done, which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It stops short of stating polling cadence or what a failed task returns.

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 tight sentences plus the endpoint reference; the return content is front-loaded and every element earns its place with no redundancy.

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 return-value burden and does so reasonably: status values and per-placement/per-variant image URLs. It omits failure diagnostics and polling expectations, but is otherwise complete for a simple read tool.

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 both parameters (store_id token behavior, task_key origin) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax, 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 (check/retrieve) and resource (mockup-generation task), plus what it yields: status (pending/completed/failed) and mockup image URLs per placement and variant. It is clearly distinguished from its sibling printful_create_mockup_task, which initiates rather than checks a task.

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 implied by the phrasing 'Check a mockup-generation task' and by the task_key parameter pointing back at printful_create_mockup_task, but the description never explicitly says 'call this after creating a task to poll until completion' nor states any alternative tool. An agent can infer the polling role, but no when/when-not guidance is spelled out.

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