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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds billing context ('1 point per returned record'), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about result format 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 compact clauses with the verb and resource front-loaded and cost stated last. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical field list mixes searchable and non-searchable attributes slightly.

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 search tool with no output schema and fully covered parameters, the description is adequate but thin: it omits any note on result shape, pagination via start_page, or relationship to the detail siblings.

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%, so query, domain, max_items and start_page are fully documented in the schema. The description adds matching-field context but no parameter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; 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?

States a specific verb ('search') and resource ('Poshmark closets'), naming the searched attributes. It distinguishes the tool from the detail-oriented siblings run_poshmark_users and run_poshmark_users_items, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

No statement of when to use this vs alternatives such as run_poshmark_users (direct lookup) or the other Poshmark search endpoints. Usage is only implied by the word 'search'.

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