Competidores seguidos

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 some context by noting that the sellers are being monitored and that sales are 'estimadas', but it does not disclose data freshness, update cadence, or any operational caveats beyond that.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core subject and returned metrics come first, followed by a clear usage cue, so the most decision-relevant information is 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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and annotations covering safety, the description conveys what the tool returns and when to use it. The main gap is that it does not explain what happens when 'cuenta' is omitted, even though the schema marks it as optional.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single parameter 'cuenta' is already described as the MercadoLibre account ID. The description adds no further meaning about how to choose or omit this optional parameter, which leaves the baseline at 3.

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 (monitored competitor sellers) and the data returned (reputation, listings, estimated sales, average price). It lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'get', and does not name sibling tools to distinguish itself, but the content is specific enough to separate it from broad market tools.

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 provides an explicit usage trigger: 'Usar cuando preguntan cómo están contra la competencia.' It gives clear context for when the tool applies, but it does not mention exclusions or explicitly compare against sibling tools such as ml_competitividad or ml_mercado.

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