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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses access requirements (no login, no API key), the live source URL, a hard result ceiling (~48, one page, no pagination cursor), and an important caveat that `price` is unverified as-reported data. That is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then sourcing/limits, then the pricing caveat. Dense but every sentence earns its place; the second sentence is slightly run-on with parenthetical detail.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers expected return volume, pagination absence, and the meaning/caveat of the returned price field. Combined with rich annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 limit/query/sort_by/department are already documented; the description confirms the ~48 ceiling but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema. 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 and resource ('Search Poshmark SOLD listings') plus the concrete output ('realized/ask-at-sale prices'), which cleanly separates it from sibling poshmark_active_search without needing the schema.

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?

Frames the tool as 'the best open sold-price comp data on Poshmark,' which implies the comp-lookup use case, but it never explicitly names poshmark_active_search or states the condition that selects between the two.

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