Mensajería post-venta

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 the data being post-purchase and order-scoped, but it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or how the optional 'limite' parameter affects results.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two purposeful sentences and no filler. It earns a deduction because it reads as a noun-phrase definition rather than an action-oriented tool description, but it remains well-structured and easily scannable.

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 only two optional parameters, the description adequately conveys the subject matter and use case, and the annotations cover the safety profile. However, with no output schema, the description does not explain what the response contains or how 'limite' affects the returned messages, leaving a minor completeness gap.

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 description adds no parameter-level meaning. One of the two parameters ('limite') lacks a semantic description in the schema, and the description does not compensate for that gap. With schema description coverage at only 50%, the description should have clarified parameter intent but does not.

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: post-purchase messages between buyers and sellers, associated with each order. It also states its analytical purpose (detecting incipient claims or change requests), which partially distinguishes it from siblings like ml_reclamos and ml_preguntas. However, it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve', so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies when to use the tool via 'Sirve para detectar reclamos incipientes o pedidos de cambio', giving a clear use case. But it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like ml_reclamos or ml_preguntas, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or routing guidance.

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