Search catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the whole catalog is fetched and filtered client-side, which signals cost/latency. It also discloses pagination defaults (20) and the cap (100) on limit, which the schema's maximum alone doesn't frame as a default.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: purpose first, then the non-obvious implementation constraint, then paging semantics. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

With no output schema, the description could have said what a result object contains (e.g., whether product ids are returned so get_product or get_variants can be chained). Otherwise it covers the input side and the local-filtering caveat thoroughly for a four-parameter read tool.

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 50% — query and category_id are documented in the schema, but limit and offset have no descriptions there. The description compensates by stating the pagination model, the default of 20, and the max of 100, adding real meaning beyond the schema's bare min/max constraints.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search the Printful product catalog") and immediately clarifies the mechanism: local filtering over a full catalog load rather than a server-side text query. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_product or get_variants, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

Gives clear usage context by explaining that the v1 endpoint has no text query and that category_id can optionally narrow the load. It does not say when NOT to use it (e.g., prefer get_product when you already have an id), so the alternative-routing guidance is incomplete.

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