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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuine behavioral trait beyond the schema — '1 point per returned record' — which tells the agent this call has a metered cost. However, nothing is said about read-only semantics (only implied), rate limits, result ordering, or pagination.

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 short sentences, zero filler. The resource definition leads and the cost note trails, so the agent reads the substance first.

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 and no annotations, the description must cover more ground than it does. It correctly states the returned entity ('listings Poshmark shows as related') and the per-record cost, but omits what a related record contains and how results are ordered or capped.

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%, with all three parameters (item, domain, max_items) documented including defaults and the enum options, so the schema already does the work. The description only echoes the item input as 'listing id or URL', adding no format or validation detail beyond the schema — baseline 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 names a specific verb and resource: listings that Poshmark surfaces as related to a given listing, with the input identified as listing id or URL. This is clearly distinguishable from run_poshmark_items (a single listing fetch) and run_poshmark_items_search, though it never names 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?

It says what the tool returns but never states when to reach for it versus run_poshmark_items, run_poshmark_items_search, or run_zalando_products_related. No prerequisites, no conditions, no exclusions — the agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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