run_poshmark_users_followers

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the pricing model ('1 point per returned record'), which is real behavioral value beyond the schema, but says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or rate limits, which matter here given the start_page and max_items parameters.

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 terse sentences, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the record shape and pricing note. Nothing wasted.

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 does helpfully enumerate returned fields (handle, name, avatar), but it omits pagination semantics, result ordering, and any cap behavior beyond the schema's max_items constraint. Adequate but with clear gaps for a paged scraping tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the 'by username or URL' input hint, which the schema's user description already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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-less but unambiguous resource: followers of a Poshmark closet, plus the record fields returned (handle, name, avatar). It is clearly distinguishable from the many non-Poshmark siblings and from run_poshmark_users_items. It does not name its inverse sibling run_poshmark_users_following, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Only implied usage ('by username or URL'). It never states when to choose this over run_poshmark_users_following, run_poshmark_users_search, or run_poshmark_users, even though those are the plausible alternatives in the same family.

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