Tendencias y categorías

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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true` and `destructiveHint: false`, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying what each mode returns (e.g., 'búsquedas que están creciendo', 'categorías más relevantes', 'más vendidos y rango de precios') and the requirement for `categoria_id`. This is useful but does not go deeper into output formats or pagination, fitting a mid-range score.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and uses semicolons to efficiently list the three modes. Every clause adds value—no redundancy or filler. The formatting with quotes and bold would likely be clear in display.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description explains the modes and their inputs but does not specify the exact shape of the response (e.g., whether results are lists, objects, with price ranges, etc.). An agent could infer these from the mode names, but the definition is not fully self-contained for a smooth invocation. The lack of return-format details is a notable 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?

Schema coverage is 67%, with the `modo` enum and `categoria_id` described in the schema, but the description goes beyond by explaining what each enum value does and providing an example ID ('MLA1234'). This adds meaningful semantic clarity for the `modo` parameter and clarifies the conditional requirement of `categoria_id`, compensating for the uncovered portion.

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 states the tool provides MercadoLibre market intelligence and enumerates three distinct modes ('tendencias', 'categorias', 'categoria') with a one-line explanation of each. This differentiates it from sibling tools that handle accounts, orders, sales, etc., and gives an agent a precise idea of what it does.

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 explains the three modes and notes that 'categoria' requires a `categoria_id`, which is useful internal guidance. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings like `ml_competidores` or `ml_competitividad`, and offers no exclusions or alternative routing. The context implies use for market trends and category insights, but it lacks explicit comparison.

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