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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior the annotations do not: the DTG default when technique is omitted, and the underlying 'GET /mockup-generator/printfiles/{id}' call. That default-assumption disclosure is exactly the kind of extra context that earns credit.

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?

One dense sentence covering scope, purpose and default behavior, followed by a short endpoint reference. The key scoping information is front-loaded with no filler; the endpoint line is mildly redundant but harmless.

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 burden of describing returns, and it does: placements plus required pixel sizes/DPI per variant. Combined with the default-technique note, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds a semantic the schema lacks: technique defaults to DTG if not supplied, which matters for multi-technique products. It does not explain store_id or orientation handling, so it is above baseline rather than exhaustive.

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 ('List the print areas (placements) and required print-file pixel sizes/DPI for each variant of a catalog product'), and adds the unit of granularity (per variant) that separates it from siblings like printful_get_catalog_product. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the 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?

Frames the use case clearly ('what a design must match before mockups or orders'), which tells the agent when this is the right call rather than create_mockup_task. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an explicit when-not condition, so it is context without exclusions.

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