poshmark_brand

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for safety and behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the tool is credential-free, uses public data, sources from both server-rendered brand pages and a JSON pagination API, and explains the pagination mechanism (pass next_max_id back as max_id). It does not mention rate limits or error conditions, but for a browse-only tool this is a solid disclosure.

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 appropriately sized at three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second explains pagination, and the third details the data source and authentication-free nature. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no redundant filler.

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 tool with a simple browse-by-brand dataset, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, pagination, credential-free access, and the two API sources. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not enumerate what 'normalized listings' include (e.g., price, title, image, etc.), which would help an agent set expectations about return shape. This leaves a small completeness gap.

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 coverage is 100%, with both `name` and `max_id` already well-described in the schema. The description adds only marginal value beyond this (e.g., the 'Nike' example, the 'browsing view' framing, and a restatement of the cursor behavior). It does not introduce any new parameter semantics not already present in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is 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 clearly states the action ('Browse Poshmark listings by brand'), the resource ('Poshmark listings'), and the specific scope ('by brand'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like poshmark_search (search all listings), poshmark_category (browse by category), and poshmark_closet (browse a user's closet). The example 'Nike' and the explicit mention of 'the same browsing view as Poshmark's own brand pages' firmly anchor its purpose.

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 description gives clear context on when to use the tool (to browse brand-specific listings in Poshmark's own brand-page view). It also implicitly excludes auth-heavy scenarios by noting 'Credential-free public data'. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., use poshmark_search for keyword-based search) or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a full 5.

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