Cambios de precio detectados

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about scope (own and monitored competitor price movements), though it does not clarify the recency window, data freshness, or response format.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the tool's scope, and the second explains when it is useful. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with two optional parameters, the description plus annotations is mostly sufficient. It communicates the data scope and intended use cases, though it omits response details and a defined time window, which would be more critical if no output schema existed.

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 describes 'cuenta', but 'limite' has no description. The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so it does not compensate for the partial schema coverage. The agent must infer 'limite' from its name and constraints.

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 clearly identifies the resource: recent price movements for the user's own listings and monitored competitors. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', and it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ml_competidores or ml_simular_precios, but the intended function is clear.

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 description gives concrete use cases: reacting to a competitor price drop or auditing one's own price changes. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the context provided is enough to guide selection.

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