run_poshmark_users_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Listings...' implies a read-only operation and '1 point per returned record' discloses the billing model, which the schema cannot express. However, pagination behavior (start_page, max_items capped at 500) and what a result record contains are never addressed.

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 zero filler: the resource and scope come first, followed by the filter surface and the cost note. Every clause carries information.

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 listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the filter surface but omits pagination semantics, default/hard limits, and any sense of result shape or ordering guarantee.

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% and the description only enumerates the same filter families (department, category, brand, size, color, price, condition, shipping, availability, sort) already documented per-property, with no added format or interaction guidance. 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+resource: listings in a Poshmark closet, scoped by username or URL. This clearly separates it from run_poshmark_items_search and run_poshmark_items (item-level lookup), though it never names those siblings explicitly to make the boundary 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?

The description says what the tool returns but gives no when-to-use guidance: it does not say to prefer this over run_poshmark_items_search when you already have a username, nor does it note any prerequisite (e.g. resolving a closet URL first) or exclusions.

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