Get a Printful order

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context about what the response includes ('in full, including line items, print files and embroidery thread options'), which goes beyond annotations. It also clarifies the exclusivity constraint between parameters. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, the second provides the parameter usage rule. All information is relevant and front-loaded. No wasted words.

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?

For a single-order fetch with no output schema, the description gives a good sense of the return content ('in full, including line items, print files and embroidery thread options') and the required parameter handling. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but given the simple resource and the annotations covering safety, this is adequate. It could be more explicit about the return object shape, but it is sufficiently complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It explains both parameters: printful_id is 'Printful's own id' and external_id is 'the id from the connected store, e.g. a Shopify order number.' It also states the crucial rule that exactly one must be provided. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('one order'), and lists what is included ('line items, print files and embroidery thread options'). It distinguishes itself from printful_list_orders by focusing on a single order, and from other get tools by the specific resource. No ambiguity or tautology.

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 explicit parameter usage: 'Pass either printful_id or external_id — exactly one of them.' This is a clear rule for invocation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., when to use printful_list_orders instead), though the sibling list makes this inferable. It gives strong guidance on parameter selection but lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement.

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