getProduct

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns 'all variants (sizes, colors)', which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it doesn't disclose whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'Get'), any authentication requirements, or error behaviors. For a simple get-by-id operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('Get detailed info') and then specifies the scope. Every word adds value, with no wasted text or repetition of the tool name.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one required parameter and no output schema. The description clearly states the tool's coverage ('including all variants'), which is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect. It doesn't go into response format, but for such a simple get operation, the description is adequately complete. It slightly misses explaining when to prefer this over getProductVariant, but the name and description already hint at the distinction.

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?

The input schema documents the single parameter 'product_id' with a description 'The Printful product ID'. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get detailed info about a specific product including all variants (sizes, colors)'. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('specific product'), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'getProducts' (plural) and 'getProductVariant' by emphasizing both a single product and its full variant set.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when you need detailed information about one specific product and its variants. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the phrasing 'specific product' and 'including all variants' provides clear context for choosing this over getProducts or getProductVariant. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the intent is clear.

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