run_poshmark_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully notes the profile is 'public' (an auth/scope hint) and discloses a flat cost of 5 points per successful run, which is real behavioral value. But it says nothing about failure modes, invalid-username behavior, rate limits, or whether the response is cached, leaving significant gaps for an unannotated read tool.

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 with the core action and returned fields front-loaded and the pricing note trailing. 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, the description compensates by enumerating the profile fields returned (bio, location, follower/following/listing counts, sold, activity), which is what an agent needs to judge relevance. It is complete enough for a 2-parameter, single-resource fetch, though the unannotated behavioral profile remains thin.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'by username or URL' loosely mirrors the user param but adds no syntax, format, or domain-selection detail beyond what the schema provides. 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 and resource ('Get a Poshmark seller's public closet profile by username or URL') and enumerates the returned fields, which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling profile-fragment tools like run_poshmark_users_followers and run_poshmark_users_items. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with run_poshmark_users_search or run_poshmark_items_search, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named despite a large family of sibling tools (run_poshmark_users_search, run_poshmark_users_followers, run_poshmark_users_items). The agent must infer selection purely from the tool name.

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