printful_get_product

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing what information is returned (placements, techniques, sizes/colors, design requirements), which helps the agent understand the output structure beyond what annotations indicate, though it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific return details in the second sentence. Every sentence adds essential information without waste, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity (a read-only, idempotent query with 1 parameter), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It clearly states the purpose and details what information is returned, which, combined with annotations and output schema, provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 0%, so the schema does not document parameters in its descriptions. The description does not mention any parameters, such as product_id or format, leaving them undocumented. However, with only 1 required parameter, the baseline is higher, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, providing no parameter semantics.

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 specific action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific catalog product'), distinguishing it from siblings like printful_list_catalog_products (which lists products) and printful_get_product_variants (which focuses on variants). The verb 'Get' combined with the resource specification provides unambiguous purpose.

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 implicitly indicates usage context by specifying 'detailed information about a specific catalog product,' suggesting it should be used when you have a product ID and need comprehensive details. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like printful_get_sync_product or printful_get_product_availability, which could provide related but different information.

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