Catálogo de MercadoLibre

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds what the tool returns—competitor list, prices, and winner—which is valuable since there is no output schema. It doesn't disclose limitations or edge cases, but does not contradict the annotations.

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 states the core function, the second gives the use case. Information density is high and front-loaded.

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 2-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the main use case and output contents, and the schema covers parameter semantics. It lacks an example and doesn't explain 'caja de compra', but these are minor given the sibling context and annotations.

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 100%, so both 'buscar' and 'cuenta' are already documented. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning beyond restating that it searches for a catalog product, which is already in the schema.

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 states a specific action (search for a catalog product) and a specific outcome (show who competes for the buy box, at what price, and who is winning). The phrase 'Usar cuando preguntan por qué no ganan el catálogo' anchors it to a concrete user intent, distinguishing it from generic competitor tools like ml_competidores.

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 provides an explicit trigger condition: use when asked why they don't win the catalog. However, it doesn't name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops at clear context without exclusions.

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