meli_question_attempt

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by disclosing the privacy behavior "sin exponer datos de contacto" and that it reads remote status plus the last local attempt, but it does not cover auth needs, error behavior, or other operational traits.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no repetition or filler. Every phrase contributes either to the query scope or the privacy constraint.

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 low-complexity, one-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description is partially complete: it explains the query scope and privacy behavior. But with no output schema and no parameter description, it leaves gaps around question_id semantics and the shape of the returned remote/local attempt data.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the single required parameter question_id is never mentioned in the description. The agent gets no added semantics about what question identifier is expected or how it relates to the remote/local attempt lookup, though the single-parameter schema limits ambiguity.

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 specific resources, "estado remoto y el último intento local," so the read/check purpose is clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from related siblings such as meli_clear_question_attempt, meli_question_context, or meli_question_detail.

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?

It gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to use meli_clear_question_attempt for clearing attempts or meli_question_detail/context for deeper question information; "sin exponer datos de contacto" is an output constraint, not usage guidance.

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