Competitividad de precios

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It discloses what is evaluated and the three outcome states, including the buy-box concept. However, it does not explain how 'market' pricing is sourced, data freshness, or edge cases such as listings without market data.

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 sentences with zero waste. The function and output categories are front-loaded, followed by the usage trigger. 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 2-param read-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys the conceptual return value (comparison status vs. market) and the trigger scenarios for use. It does not describe the exact response format or define the 'caja de compra' domain term, but the three outcome categories largely cover return semantics.

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 50%: cuenta is documented in the schema, while limite is left to its name and constraints (default 30, min 1, max 100) for meaning. The description adds no parameter-level detail and does not clarify how limite interacts with the 'cada publicación propia' scope, though the constraints make limite reasonably inferable.

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 names a specific verb (compara) and resource (el precio de cada publicación propia contra el mercado), and concretely defines the output as three categories: por encima, por debajo, o perdió la caja de compra. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the precise scope makes it readily distinguishable from close relatives like ml_simular_precios (simulation) and ml_cambios_precio (price-change history).

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 second sentence gives explicit trigger scenarios: 'Usar cuando preguntan si están caros o por qué cayeron las ventas.' This tells an agent exactly when to select this tool. It stops short of a 5 because it does not state when not to use it or name a specific alternative tool.

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