run_poshmark_items_search

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does provide one genuinely valuable behavioral fact — "1 point per returned record" — which tells the agent this call is metered and that max_items drives cost, but it says nothing about read-only nature, pagination behavior, rate limits, or result freshness beyond the word "live".

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the cost note trailing. The long filter enumeration partially duplicates the schema but aids quick scanning; it is not wasteful enough to penalize heavily.

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 16-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and cost but omits what a result record contains and how start_page interacts with max_items for paging. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would want filled.

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 enum values, examples, and min/max bounds for all 16 parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description only restates the filter categories at a high level without adding syntax or defaults (e.g., default sort, page-size semantics).

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 and resource ("Search live Poshmark listings") plus the full filter surface, which is far more precise than the tautological name. It does not explicitly name the sibling run_poshmark_items (single-item lookup) or run_poshmark_items_related, so differentiation is inferable but not spelled out.

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 phrase "by keyword" plus the filter list implies the intended case (discovery of listings matching criteria), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no naming of alternatives such as run_poshmark_items for known item IDs. Usage must be inferred.

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