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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so no safety contradiction exists. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond those annotations by revealing the HTTP method, seller-oriented query parameter, pagination behavior, and supported filter values, including the status enum.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the main purpose comes first, followed by endpoint context, pagination, and filters. There is no filler, repetition, or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 read-only listing tool, the description covers endpoint, pagination, and core filters, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, with no output schema and no descriptions for account/limit/offset, an AI agent may not know exactly which parameters map to seller selection and pagination, or what list items look like in the response.

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?

The input schema has no parameter descriptions, so the description is the primary guide. It adds meaning for status (UNANSWERED, ANSWERED) and item (advertisement ID), and 'Paginado' indirectly hints at limit/offset. However, the account parameter is not explained at all, and limit/offset are not explicitly tied to their parameter names, leaving several parameters under-specified.

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?

Description clearly uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Lista perguntas recebidas pelo vendedor' and includes the exact endpoint. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like mercadolivre_get_question by indicating this is the listing/search-like variant.

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 conveys a clear context: use it to list seller questions, with optional filters, pagination, and a GET endpoint. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as mercadolivre_get_question, nor does it mention exclusions or follow-up actions.

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