meli_get_item

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. The description contributes by naming the payload (attributes and status), but says nothing about error behavior for invalid/missing item IDs or about freshness/latency of an open-world lookup.

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 no filler; the returned data is stated immediately after the action. It is efficient, though there was clearly room to add one more clause about the identifier without bloating it.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and the shape of the result. It leaves gaps on the item_id format and on failure modes, which matter for an open-world single-resource lookup.

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%, so the description carries the burden for item_id, yet it never mentions the parameter, its expected format (e.g. site-prefixed IDs), or what an invalid value does. The link between 'publicación' and item_id is inferable but not made explicit.

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 ('Consulta') and resource ('el detalle de una publicación') and enumerates what is returned (atributos y estado). It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as meli_get_items, meli_get_description or meli_list_items, so an agent must infer the singular-vs-batch distinction from the name alone.

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 guidance on when to use this versus meli_get_items, meli_list_items, or meli_get_description, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and the surrounding sibling set.

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