poshmark_brands

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states the tool is "Credential-free public data" and identifies the source as Poshmark's server-rendered brand directory page. It also explains the scope (full directory vs. active listings) and the return fields (name, slug, logo, aliases), which provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 three sentences that are each purposeful and front-loaded with the primary action. It efficiently covers what, why, and data source without redundancy or unnecessary 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only directory tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the data scope, the target use case, the source, and the fields returned, giving an agent everything needed to decide to call it and interpret the result.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on what is returned rather than parameter usage, and no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 a specific action and resource: "Get the full Poshmark brand directory." It further distinguishes itself from brand-resolution or search-filter tools by noting it returns "every brand Poshmark recognizes," not just those with active listings, and explicitly lists the fields returned.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: "Useful for resolving a brand name to the exact value the brand/search filters expect." It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately among the Poshmark family.

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