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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. Important quirks such as pagination cursor behavior and omitted fields when max_id is set appear only in the input schema, not in the description.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is somewhat terse and fragment-like, but it does not bury information or repeat itself.

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?

Given the two-parameter tool, rich schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient for invocation. However, it does not help an agent choose this tool over the many similar Poshmark sibling tools or clarify the scope of the result set beyond what structured fields already provide.

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 both parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds little parameter meaning beyond the phrase 'trend/showroom id', making the schema baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 resource and filter: Poshmark listings retrieved by trend/showroom id. It makes the trend/showroom distinction clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as poshmark_search, poshmark_category, or poshmark_brand.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'browsed by trend/showroom id' only weakly implies usage when the caller already has such an id.

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