meli_promotion_items

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 one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that results are cursor-paginated and the returned search_after value must be echoed back — but says nothing about page size behavior, result shape, or what happens when the cursor is exhausted.

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 compact sentence with no padding, which is good, but the brevity is achieved by omission rather than by efficiency — for a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, one clause about the cursor is too little to front-load.

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, no title, 5 undocumented parameters and a one-sentence description, an agent cannot determine what a page of "candidatos" contains or how to filter it. The pagination hint is helpful but far from sufficient for this tool's complexity.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and covers only search_after. It never explains promotion_id, promotion_type, status filtering, or limit, leaving the two required parameters and the filter entirely undocumented.

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 gives a verb ("Consulta") and a pagination behavior, but the resource is stated only as "candidatos", which never identifies what is being listed — promotion items — and is meaningless without reading the tool name. It also does not distinguish this from siblings like meli_item_promotions or meli_seller_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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the promotion-related siblings, nor any prerequisite context (e.g. that a promotion_id/promotion_type must be known first). The only guidance is a mechanical pagination instruction, which is usage of a parameter rather than tool selection guidance.

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