Embudo visitas → ventas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool reports per-publication visit/question/sale counts, but it does not disclose aggregation windows, data freshness, or response shape; with annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states metrics and purpose with no filler. The title and description are slightly redundant but the description itself is efficiently structured.

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 tool with one optional parameter and read-only annotations, the description gives sufficient semantic context to invoke it. The only notable gap is the lack of any mention of time period or how the per-publication rows are returned, which would matter in richer contexts.

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% (cuenta is fully described as an optional MercadoLibre account ID), so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-level detail, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 the resource (each publicación) and the metrics (visitas, preguntas, ventas), tying them to a conversion-funnel objective. It is clear enough to distinguish from visit-only or question-only siblings, though it never names an alternative and lacks an explicit imperative verb.

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 phrase 'para detectar dónde se cae la conversión' gives a clear context for when to request this report. However, it does not state when not to use it or point to alternatives among the many metric tools (e.g., ml_visitas, ml_preguntas_estadisticas).

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