meli_catalog_eligibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond the purpose sentence: it does not say what eligibility criteria are evaluated, whether the check is per-marketplace/site, or what the answer looks like. With annotations carrying the safety burden a 3 would be reachable, but no extra context is actually supplied.

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?

One short sentence with the purpose front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than being maximally informative.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description is the only place a caller could learn that the result is presumably a yes/no eligibility verdict (and whether reasons are included). That is never stated, nor are any prerequisites or seller/site scoping, leaving a read-only eligibility check that an agent can call but not fully anticipate the response of.

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 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate. It does partially, implying via 'una publicación' that item_id is a listing identifier, but it never states the expected format (e.g. an MLA-style item id) or whether the id must belong to the caller's own listings.

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 ('Comprueba') and a specific subject ('si una publicación puede participar en catálogo'), so the agent knows this is an eligibility check rather than a search or a catalog listing read. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like meli_search_catalog, meli_catalog_product, or meli_compare_catalog, which prevents 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative. Given the cluster of catalog-related siblings (meli_search_catalog, meli_catalog_product, meli_compare_catalog), an agent must infer on its own when an eligibility check is the right call versus those tools.

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