run_poshmark_items_related

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful trait beyond the schema — billing at '1 point per returned record' — and 'List' implies a read-only operation. However it says nothing about pagination, default result count, or authentication requirements.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded and the cost note second. Every clause earns its place: the first defines the operation and its input, the second discloses billing.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers what the tool returns at a high level and its cost. It omits the shape of each returned record, the default number of items when max_items is unset, and pagination behavior, which leaves an agent guessing about result volume.

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 (including the 1-50 bound and domain enum). The description only restates the item parameter's accepted formats (id or URL), adding no meaning beyond 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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (related listings) plus the accepted identifier forms (listing id or URL), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings such as run_poshmark_items_search or run_poshmark_items, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisite (e.g. needing an existing listing id), and no mention of when related listings are preferable to searching. Usage must be inferred entirely from the one-line purpose.

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