Preguntas de compradores

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds the default pending state, the urgency rationale, and the fact that the response includes the internal ID needed for ml_responder_pregunta — useful behavioral and output context beyond the annotations.

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 no filler: resource/filters first, default behavior second, and output linkage last. Every sentence contributes a distinct fact.

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?

The core information for calling the tool correctly is present: filters, default estado, and the output linkage to ml_responder_pregunta. It could be more complete by explicitly noting that it returns a list of questions and pointing to ml_preguntas_estadisticas for aggregate statistics, but the current definition is adequate for a simple filtered-list tool.

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?

With 83% schema coverage, the schema already documents most parameters, but the description adds meaning by grouping filters (estado, publicación, mes, texto) and labeling pending items as urgent, which helps an agent decide on defaults. It does not add detail for cuenta or limite, but the schema covers those.

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?

States a specific resource (buyer questions on listings) with named filters and explicitly ties its output to ml_responder_pregunta, which distinguishes it from related siblings like ml_preguntas_estadisticas. The verb is implicit but the scope is unambiguous and not a mere restatement of the tool's name.

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?

Gives clear usage context: by default it returns pending questions because they are urgent, and it supplies the ID required for the follow-up tool ml_responder_pregunta. It does not explicitly enumerate exclusions or alternatives like ml_preguntas_estadisticas, so it stops short of a 5.

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