get_item_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Obtiene' signals a read-only retrieval, and listing the metric groups adds real value, but it says nothing about data freshness, aggregation window behavior, permissions, rate limits, or what the response structure looks like — notable since there is no output schema.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource, and returned metric categories in order of importance. No wasted wording, though the terseness leaves room for one clarifying clause about the date range.

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 three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose and the broad shape of the returned data, which partly compensates for the missing output schema. It is nonetheless thin on behavioral context (freshness, permissions) given there are no annotations to lean on.

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 item_id and the date_from/date_to range with their defaults are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'visitas' hints that the date range only affects visit metrics, but it does not state this explicitly, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Obtiene') and resource ('métricas de una publicación') and enumerates the three metric families returned (visitas, salud de publicación, datos de catálogo). This makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_orders or get_reputation, though it never names an alternative 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for per-listing performance data, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over siblings such as price_history or stockout_risk, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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