run_craigslist_postings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the credit cost ('Flat 5 points per successful run') and the breadth of returned data, but says nothing about permissions, failure modes for expired/removed postings, or rate limiting.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and input method; the second sentence carries the non-obvious cost disclosure. Every clause earns its place, with only mild list density in the field enumeration.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned fields (category attributes, decoded VIN spec, hiring company, images, location, dates) is genuinely load-bearing and makes the tool predictable. It is only slightly short on error/edge behavior for invalid or expired postings.

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% and the schema already documents both accepted forms (22-character id or URL) with an example. The description's 'by id or URL' restates that without adding format, validation, or edge-case nuance, so the baseline of 3 applies for a single well-documented parameter.

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 names a specific operation (fetch a full Craigslist posting) and a precise input mode (by id or URL), and it enumerates the record's composition (title, price, body, VIN spec, images, dates), so an agent understands this is a single-item detail lookup. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with (run_craigslist_postings_search / run_craigslist_postings_seller), but the singular 'posting by id or URL' framing makes the distinction inferable.

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?

Usage is only implied: the requirement of an id or URL suggests this is the follow-up call once a posting reference is known, versus the search tool for discovery. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative among the many craigslist siblings.

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