search_competitors

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the whole burden; it does disclose that only the 'top resultados' are returned and lists the fields returned (precio, vendedor, ventas, envío gratis). It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, pagination, or whether queries are scoped to a seller's own site/marketplace context.

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, front-loaded sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second states what comes back. No filler, and the return-field sentence earns its place because there is no output schema.

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 six-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return shape adequately. The remaining gap is workflow context — how results relate to sibling tools like price_to_win or get_item_metrics — which is left implicit.

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 all six parameters (query, sort, limit, price_min/max, category_id) are already documented inline. The description adds nothing to their meaning beyond hinting at a limited result set via 'top resultados'; 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 ('Busca') and resource ('productos de la competencia en Mercado Libre'), which implicitly separates it from siblings like list_products (own catalog) or price_to_win. It never names an alternative explicitly, so differentiation relies on inference from the name and domain wording.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when a sibling such as get_item_metrics, price_history or price_to_win would be the better choice. An agent must guess how this fits into a competitor-pricing workflow.

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