run_poshmark_items_comments

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 usefully discloses the credit cost (1 point per returned record) and names returned comment fields, but omits read-only confirmation, rate/pagination behavior, and whether all comments or a capped set are returned.

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 short clauses with the resource front-loaded, followed by useful return-field and cost details. Every phrase earns its place and there is no filler.

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 3-parameter read tool with no output schema, it names returned fields and the point cost, while the schema fully covers inputs. It leaves only minor gaps around domain default and pagination/cap 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%, so the schema already documents item, domain, and max_items. The description restates that item accepts a listing id or URL but adds no syntax, domain default, or max_items meaning 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?

Identifies the resource (comments on a Poshmark listing) and the returned fields (author, text, date), which distinguishes it from siblings like run_poshmark_items_likes. However, the verb is omitted or ambiguous: 'Comments on...' could be read as an action rather than a retrieval, and no sibling alternative is named.

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?

Gives the required identifier form (listing id or URL), but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over run_poshmark_items, run_poshmark_items_search, or run_poshmark_items_likes. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context conditions.

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