printful_get_mockup_task

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide: it specifies typical processing time ('10-30 seconds to generate') and describes the return structure ('task status and mockup image URLs if completed'). Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent characteristics, so the description appropriately supplements with operational details.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by return details and timing information. All three sentences earn their place with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), and the presence of an output schema, the description provides complete contextual information. It covers purpose, return values, and timing expectations without needing to duplicate what structured fields already provide.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description doesn't directly explain the 'task_id' parameter. However, the context ('Check mockup generation status') implicitly clarifies that 'task_id' refers to an existing mockup task. This provides meaningful semantic context that compensates for the schema gap.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('Check mockup generation status and get results') and identifies the resource ('mockup task'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'printful_create_mockup_task' by focusing on status checking rather than creation.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Check mockup generation status') and implies it should be used after creating a mockup task. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings.

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