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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, open-world read, and the description layers on real behavioral detail beyond them: cursor-based pagination, a 15-minute result cache, per-search request billing that includes cache hits, and free failed searches. That is exactly the operational context an agent needs before spending requests.

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?

Five short sentences: purpose first, then pagination, caching, billing, and a docs link. Each sentence carries distinct information and nothing is padded, though the cursor sentence partially overlaps the schema and the docs URL is an added tail.

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, the description still gives the agent the essentials: what a call returns (one page of sold listings), how paging works, and what it costs. It does not describe the shape of result rows or how the fields=summary/full toggle affects output, a minor remaining gap given the schema covers parameters.

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 the schema itself documenting q, page, cursor, fields, country, condition, and price bounds in detail. The description only restates keyword search and country in passing, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 one page of Poshmark sold listings by keyword') plus scope ('on Poshmark US or Canada'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling poshmark_listings (active listings) and from other marketplaces' *_sold tools.

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 'sold listings' framing implies this is the tool for sold/comparable pricing data versus poshmark_listings, and the cursor/caching notes set invocation context. However, no sibling is named and there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not conditions, so the agent must infer the choice.

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