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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered for free. The description adds one genuinely useful non-schema fact, the per-record point cost, but says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or completeness of results beyond that.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the cost note, with no filler. Slightly redundant in re-listing the filtered facets that the schema already documents, but still tight.

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 16-parameter, all-optional search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filter scope, and cost, which is the minimum viable set. It omits return shape, paging behavior despite a start_page parameter, and any differentiation from the adjacent Poshmark tools, which leaves real gaps.

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 enum values documented for six parameters, so the schema already carries the semantics and the baseline is 3. The description enumerates filter dimensions (department, category, brand, size, color, price, condition, shipping, availability, sort) but adds no format, interaction, or default guidance beyond what the schema states.

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 (Search) and resource (live Poshmark listings) with a scope of keyword plus filters. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings such as run_poshmark_items (single-item lookup) or run_poshmark_items_related, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 tool is self-evidently a search, and the '1 point per returned record' line hints that callers should keep max_items modest, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative named (e.g. use run_poshmark_items to fetch details for a known item ID). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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