therealreal_listing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the data is credential-free, public, sourced from The RealReal's server-rendered listing page, and returned as a single normalized listing. This meaningfully conveys read-only, no-auth behavior and the data origin, though it omits details like error handling or rate limits.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then efficiently covers return contents, lookup method, and data source. Every sentence adds useful information.

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 single-parameter detail tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it names the input, explains where to get it, lists the returned fields, and establishes the public read-only nature. It could add explicit failure behavior or URL format caveats, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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%, and the schema already documents the url parameter as 'Full product URL, as returned in a search/category/designer response's url field.' The description repeats this same guidance without adding new semantic detail, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a The RealReal listing detail.' It clearly states what is returned (description, condition detail, category context, measurements, plus shared summary fields) and distinguishes this single-listing tool from search/category/designer endpoints by specifying the lookup key is the URL from those responses.

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 usage context: use this tool with the full product URL returned by a search/category/designer response, implying it is the follow-up detail lookup after those discovery tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops 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.