therealreal_designers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses data provenance ('server-rendered designer directory page'), caching behavior ('responses are cached'), authentication requirement ('Credential-free public data'), and inclusion of inactive designers ('not just designers with currently active listings'). It also tells the caller that valid category values are discoverable in the response. This is rich behavioral context beyond any structured field.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, scope, field usage, categorization, caching, and auth are each covered once without redundancy. The most important fact (what the tool does) is front-loaded, and nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema reference tool, the description is complete: it states what is returned (designers with id and slug), how to choose a department, how to consume the results (against search's designer_id and the designer endpoint), and that the data is cached and public. No critical calling or interpretation guidance is missing.

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 single optional category parameter is fully documented in the schema, including accepted values and default, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds only that category selects a department and that the response lists accepted values, reinforcing rather than extending the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get The RealReal designer directory') and immediately clarifies scope: it returns every recognized designer in one department, not just those with active listings. It distinguishes itself from the singular designer endpoint by noting each entry's slug is usable directly against that endpoint. An agent can tell it apart from siblings like therealreal_search and therealreal_designer.

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?

It explains the primary usage context: pass category to select a department, and the response's categories field lists accepted values. It also positions the data as reference data and notes it is credential-free, implying safe use, and contrasts with 'currently active listings' which are handled elsewhere. However, it never explicitly names alternative tools or says when not to use this tool, stopping just short of full routing guidance.

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