meli_search_catalog

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 without the description restating it. However, the description adds no behavioral context such as pagination behavior, rate limits, result scope, or authentication needs, despite having limit and offset parameters.

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 sentence with zero waste and the search purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the amount of information it chooses to provide.

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 four-parameter search tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain pagination, return shape, or site-code format beyond one example, leaving important context missing for correct invocation and result interpretation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains q as text and site_id as site with the example 'MLA', but it says nothing about limit or offset, leaving half of the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Busca') and resource ('productos de catálogo') with text and site scope, plus an example site code. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling catalog tools such as meli_catalog_product or meli_compare_catalog, so it is clear but not fully sibling-aware.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative-tool guidance. The text only implies that this is a catalog text/site search, leaving the agent to infer when it should be chosen over sibling catalog tools.

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