Get a live Hark Tech 3D printing price

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

Annotations already mark this read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context: the exact return fields, the meaning of at_order_minimum versus per-copy cost, the small-part minimum for PLA/PETG, and the failure mode (available=false with reason/message, including transient 'pricing busy for about a minute').

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?

It is front-loaded with purpose, then the return shape, then args. The return-field enumeration is longer than ideal, but since there is no output schema each element earns its place; only 'tiny PLA or PETG parts use a lower small-part minimum' feels like a slightly awkward detour.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description supplies the return contract itself, plus the unavailable path and the model-link provenance. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the response.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: model_link is documented with accepted URL formats per site, material lists all eleven accepted values (there is no enum in the schema), and quantity is bounded to 1-999.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: get Hark Tech's price to 3D print a catalogue model and post it in the UK. 'Catalogue model' implicitly separates it from quote_my_file and search_models, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the required input: a Printables, Thingiverse or harktech.co.uk/m/ model link selects this tool. However, it never states when to prefer it over quote_my_file or search_models, and gives no exclusions.

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