printful_get_variant_prices

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, non-destructive, idempotent read operation. The description adds value by specifying what the tool returns ('base prices by technique, placement costs, and quantity discounts') and its purpose in cost calculation, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 details on returns and usage context. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's appropriately sized at three concise sentences. There's no wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (1 parameter, with annotations and an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, and with an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values. However, it could improve by addressing parameter semantics or more explicit usage guidelines, leaving minor gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's implied by the tool's purpose. It mentions 'variant' which aligns with the 'variant_id' parameter, but doesn't explain parameters like 'currency' or 'format'. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 pricing information for a specific variant.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('pricing information for a specific variant'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'printful_get_product' or 'printful_get_order' that retrieve different types of data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'printful_get_product_variants' which might also involve variant information, though that tool likely lists variants rather than pricing details.

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 usage context with 'Helps calculate total order costs before ordering,' suggesting it should be used for cost estimation prior to placing an order. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'printful_calculate_shipping' for shipping costs or 'printful_get_product' for general product info. No exclusions or clear alternatives are provided, leaving some ambiguity.

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