meli_guia_indice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so safety is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the detail that the content is user-supplied ('aportada por el usuario'), which hints at per-user scoping but is not elaborated. No further behavioral context is offered.

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 sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. The enumeration of six topics is somewhat long but each item carries information about what the index contains.

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 an output schema present, zero parameters, and complete annotations, the description needs only to state what the tool returns and for whom, which it does. The one gap is the missing pointer to meli_guia_seccion for retrieving an actual section's content.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly signals a no-argument call by describing only what is returned.

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 ('Lista') and resource (the guide index) and enumerates the sections it covers: optimización, ventas, objetivos, consultas, reputación, publicidad. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'meli_guia_seccion' or 'meli_guia_imagen', so the index-vs-section relationship is only implied by the word 'índice'.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (meli_guia_seccion to drill into a topic, meli_guia_imagen for visuals). An agent must infer the entry-point role from the name alone.

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