printful_get_sync_product

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the API version constraint (v1 only, not v2) and clarifies the return content ('including variants and designs'). Annotations already indicate this is a safe read operation (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true), so the description appropriately supplements rather than contradicts them. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling.

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 appropriately sized with three concise sentences. Each sentence adds value: first states the core purpose and API version, second specifies return content, third reinforces the API version constraint. No wasted words, and information is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), rich annotations covering safety profile, and moderate complexity, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the key constraints (v1 API only) and return scope. However, it could better address parameter usage and differentiate from sibling tools like 'printful_list_sync_products' for full contextual completeness.

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 description carries full burden for parameter meaning. It doesn't mention any parameters explicitly, though it implies 'sync_product_id' is needed by referring to 'sync product details'. The 'format' parameter with enum values is completely undocumented in the description. Baseline is 3 since the schema provides structure, but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond what's inferable from the tool name.

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: 'Get sync product details using v1 API' and specifies it returns 'full sync product info including variants and designs'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'printful_get_product' by focusing on 'sync products' specifically. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'printful_list_sync_products' which might list multiple sync products versus getting details of one.

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: 'Currently only available via v1 API' and 'not available in v2 yet', which helps guide API version selection. It implies this is for retrieving detailed information about a specific sync product, but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over 'printful_list_sync_products' or other product-related tools, nor does it mention prerequisites like authentication.

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