therealreal_designer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does so well: it states that the data is credential-free public data, sourced from The RealReal's server-rendered designer page, and that results come back as a normalized page with pagination via next_after. It does not mention ordering or exact shape of listing fields, but it covers the most important behavioral traits for a read-only browsing tool.

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 reasonably tight and front-loads the core purpose before explaining pagination and data source. The second sentence somewhat repeats the browsing idea, but the overall length is appropriate and every major piece of guidance earns its place.

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 simple read-only designer listing tool, the description is nearly complete: it explains the required slug, the pagination mechanism, the public/credential-free nature, and the source. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the mention of a normalized page and the next_after cursor, though more detail about returned fields would make it fully complete.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters clearly. The description adds only a minor example slug ('gucci') and restates the pagination behavior already present in the 'after' parameter description, so it provides no substantial semantic value beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as a listing-browser for a specific designer slug ('Browse The RealReal listings by designer'), with a concrete example slug. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like therealreal_search or therealreal_category, but the resource and behavior are specific enough to be distinguishable.

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 intended use is implied: to fetch listings for a designer slug such as 'gucci'. The pagination instruction ('Pass a previous response's next_after back as after') is useful operational guidance, but the description gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives like search, category, or collection endpoints.

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