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 real value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the returned detail (variants, images, print areas, publish status), which matters since there is no output schema. It omits auth requirements and error behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 the payload description and followed by the REST mapping. No filler, no restated 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by naming the returned fields, and both required params are covered in the schema. Missing only peripheral detail such as permission requirements or failure modes, which is acceptable for a simple read-by-id 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% and both required parameters (shop_id, product_id) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameter format or constraints beyond echoing the ids in the REST path.

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+resource ('Get a single product's full details') and enumerates the payload contents (variants, images, print areas, publish status). The word 'single' cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling printify_list_products without the agent needing to open 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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'single product' — the agent can infer this is the per-item lookup versus the list tool, but no alternative is named and no when-not condition is given. Adequate but not explicit routing.

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