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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real value on top by disclosing that the call verifies the token can access both shops in the same account, and that 'uncertain writes' can appear in results. It doesn't discuss pagination behavior (covered by schema) or result shape, but the auth verification requirement is a non-obvious trait worth 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the capability and closed with the exclusion. Every clause carries information; no filler or restatement of the title.

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 read-only status tool with no output schema, the description usefully previews the payload (progress, mappings, failures, uncertain writes). The dual-shop access requirement is also surfaced. Pagination is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable but is the one remaining gap.

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 80%, with descriptions already written for entry_limit, entry_cursor, source_shop_id and target_shop_id, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only hints at shop-pair semantics via 'both shops' and says nothing about job_id format or cursor usage beyond what the schema states.

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 (read) and resource (a durable product-copy job) and enumerates exactly what is returned: progress, target mappings, failures and uncertain writes. The closing sentence carves out what it does not do (create or retry products), which separates it from printify_copy_products and printify_resolve_copy.

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?

Gives clear context for use — checking progress of an existing job — plus an explicit negative boundary ('Does not create or retry products'). It stops short of naming the sibling tools that start or retry a job, so the agent must infer the routing rather than being handed it.

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