meli_guia_seccion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the returned section includes references to images and formulas, which is useful content context, but says nothing about size, pagination or how images are referenced (by id vs URL).

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, zero padding, with the core action front-loaded and the selection hint second. Every sentence carries information.

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 annotations, an output schema and a single enum parameter, the burden is light, and the description covers what the tool returns and how to pick a section. A brief note on what the numbered sections or 'fuentes' contain would close the remaining gap.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter is an enum of "1"-"7" plus "fuentes", whose meanings are opaque without the index tool. The description compensates only by pointing to the index for selection; it does not explain what the numeric sections or "fuentes" contain, which matters since 'fuentes' is not obviously a section.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: reads a section of the operational guide, including its image and formula references. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from meli_guia_indice by telling the agent to consult the index to choose a section. It stops short of an explicit 'not for listing sections' statement, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

'Consulta el índice para elegirla' gives an explicit discovery path via the sibling meli_guia_indice, which is exactly the routing an agent needs for a tool whose only parameter is a section enum. No when-not-to-use guidance is given, but for a read-only guide reader there is little else to exclude.

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