meli_item_performance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context: no indication of what 'quality' metrics or 'recommendations' are returned, what happens if the domain does not support performance, or whether the call errors or returns empty.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, which is good, but it is front-loaded with an ambiguous conditional clause rather than the concrete object of the call. Brevity here comes at the cost of clarity, not from efficiency.

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 no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description carries the full burden and leaves key questions unanswered: which identifier is expected, what the response contains, and how 'domain supports performance' is determined. It is not sufficient for correct invocation.

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% and there is one required parameter (item_id), yet the description never mentions item_id or its format. With zero schema documentation the description needed to compensate and does not.

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?

It names an action (consult quality and recommendations) but ties it to an opaque condition ('cuando el dominio admite performance') and never mentions the item resource that the sole parameter implies. An agent can guess it relates to item performance quality, but the purpose is only vaguely conveyed and not distinguished from siblings like meli_get_item or meli_item_promotions.

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?

The only guidance is a conditional ('when the domain supports performance') with no explanation of how the agent determines that, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the many sibling tools. Nothing tells the caller when to prefer this over meli_get_item.

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