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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the cost model ('1 point per returned record') and the shape of returned records, which are genuine behavioral traits. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior, permission/auth needs, or whether results are ordered, leaving meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the return fields, followed by the cost note. Every clause earns its place with zero filler.

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 simple 3-parameter list endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the resource, the input anchor (listing id/URL), the returned fields, and the billing cost. It is nearly complete, with only minor omissions like ordering or pagination behavior left unstated.

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 100%, and the schema already documents the item, domain enum, and max_items (up to 500, default 25). The description's 'by listing id or URL' merely restates what the item parameter schema already says, so it adds no meaning beyond structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb+resource: it returns the users who liked a Poshmark listing, and even previews the returned fields (handle, name, avatar). It is distinguishable from siblings like run_poshmark_items_comments or run_poshmark_items_related by its 'liked' scope, though it does not name those siblings 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 only implied by the name and the phrase 'by listing id or URL' — an agent can infer you call this to enumerate likers of a given listing. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling tools that cover comments, related items, or search.

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