list_questions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a filtered listing operation, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, what happens with an unknown seller_id, or permission requirements, all of which matter for a 5-parameter tool with no structured behavioral hints.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the filtering capability immediately after. No filler, though the parenthetical status list is slightly imprecise relative to the schema enum.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must cover more ground. It explains the core purpose and filters, but leaves pagination semantics, result shape, and the full status set unaddressed, which is a moderate gap for a 5-parameter read tool.

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 five parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description adds slight reinforcement by naming the item_id and status filters, but its parenthetical only lists two statuses ("sin responder, respondidas") while the schema enum includes a third (CLOSED_UNANSWERED), which is less than fully additive.

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 ("Lista las preguntas recibidas en publicaciones de Mercado Libre"), which is clear enough to distinguish it from the mutation sibling answer_question and from list_products. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implied through the filter options (por item o estado), suggesting this is the retrieval tool to use before answering questions. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative answer_question, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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