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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the concrete endpoint (GET /products/{sku}) and a detailed inventory of the response contents, which is the main behavioral unknown for a read tool. It omits what happens for an unknown SKU and any rate-limit behavior, so it stops short of 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?

Front-loaded with the subject and its return contents, followed by the use case and endpoint; every clause carries information. The field enumeration is long but each item (required print areas, shipping countries, pixel sizes) is genuinely decision-relevant for building quotes.

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 does so thoroughly across attributes, print areas, and variants. A one-parameter read tool needs nothing more; the only minor omission is error behavior for an invalid SKU.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema coverage is 100% — the schema already documents sku with an example (GLOBAL-CAN-10x10). The description only restates 'by SKU' without adding format, casing, or lookup-failure semantics, so 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 and resource ('Details of one Prodigi product by SKU') and enumerates exactly what is returned: description, dimensions, attributes and allowed values, print areas with required flags, and variants with shipping countries and pixel sizes. The single-item-by-SKU scope clearly distinguishes it from siblings like prodigi_list_orders or prodigi_create_quote.

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?

'Use it to build valid quote requests' gives a concrete downstream purpose and implicitly points at prodigi_create_quote as the follow-on tool. It does not state when not to use it or how it relates to prodigi_get_spine_width, which could also feed quote construction, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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