poshmark_trend

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool is credential-free, sources data from Poshmark's server-rendered page and JSON API, and explains pagination behavior with next_max_id. This goes beyond typical read-only descriptions, though it doesn't cover rate limits or error behavior.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the core action, the second gives an example and aligns with Poshmark's own browsing experience, and the third covers pagination and data sourcing. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's simplicity (two params, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: purpose, return type, pagination, and authentication. It could be improved by detailing what the normalized listings contain, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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%: both 'id' and 'max_id' have clear descriptions, including how to derive the id from a /trend/{slug}-{id} URL and that max_id is an opaque cursor. The description adds a small reinforcement of the max_id mechanism but does not provide substantial semantic value beyond the schema, so it lands at the baseline.

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 verb ('Browse') and resource ('Poshmark trend/showroom collection'), and immediately explains what it returns: a page of normalized listings. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing Poshmark's own trend pages and giving an example collection, which sets it apart from search, closet, listing, and category 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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool: to browse a curated trend/showroom collection, mirroring Poshmark's trend page view. It also explains pagination usage with max_id. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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