run_poshmark_users_following

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the output fields and a cost model ('1 point per returned record'), which is real behavioral context. It does not mention pagination behavior, auth needs, or the 500-item cap, leaving gaps.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, followed by the returned fields and the cost note. No waste and nothing buried.

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?

Adequate for a list tool with no output schema: returned fields and cost are covered, and pagination parameters live in the schema. However it omits any hint about result ordering, the pagination interplay with start_page/max_items, or when this complements run_poshmark_users_followers.

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 user, domain, max_items, and start_page. The description's 'by username or URL' merely restates the user parameter that the schema already explains, adding no new syntax or format detail. 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: the users a Poshmark closet follows, and enumerates the returned fields (handle, name, avatar). The 'following' scope inherently distinguishes it from run_poshmark_users_followers, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 input guidance ('by username or URL') but no when-to-use context, no conditions for choosing this over run_poshmark_users, run_poshmark_users_followers, or run_poshmark_users_search, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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