mcp-colombia

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what information is returned (precios, vendedor, envío gratis, link de compra), but does not cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination behavior for a search tool with up to 10 results.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. Every part earns its place by specifying the action, target, and key return values without unnecessary elaboration.

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 search tool with 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose and return values. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like result format, error cases, or limitations, which would be helpful given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how query terms are matched or the meaning of 'relevancia' sorting. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Busca productos') and resource ('en MercadoLibre Colombia'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'ml_detalle_producto' which likely provides detailed product information. It explicitly mentions the scope of the search and the key information returned.

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 implies usage for searching products on MercadoLibre Colombia, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ml_detalle_producto' or other search tools. It provides basic context but lacks explicit exclusions or comparative guidance.

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