run_poshmark_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a useful cost trait ('Flat 5 points per successful run') and implies read-only via 'Get', but omits auth requirements, rate limits, domain default behavior, and error semantics.

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 tight sentences front-load the purpose and append a cost note; the field list is long but earns its place by telling the agent what data comes back. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by naming returned fields and noting the point cost, while the schema fully covers parameters. It falls short of 5 only because it doesn't state the domain parameter's default or error-handling behavior.

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%, with both 'item' and 'domain' fully documented in the input schema. The description's 'by id or URL' adds no new syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb 'Get one Poshmark listing' and resource, with 'by id or URL' clearly separating it from search or related-item siblings. It enumerates returned fields (price, brand, size, colors, category, photos, likes/comments, seller, likers/comments shown on the page), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns.

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?

Implies usage when an id or URL is already known, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never names alternatives like run_poshmark_items_search or run_poshmark_items_related. An agent must infer that this is for a known single listing rather than discovery.

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