Promociones disponibles

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that results are account-specific and that eligibility is potential ('podrían entrar'), but it does not describe pagination, data freshness, or the return format. This is consistent with the annotations and adds moderate value beyond them.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence defines what the tool returns, and the second gives the practical trigger for using it. This is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 listing tool with three optional, fully schema-documented parameters and no output schema, this definition is largely sufficient for an agent to select and call it. Minor gaps include not stating what happens when no filters are provided and not naming closest sibling alternatives, but these are not blocking.

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 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description in the input schema. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail, but the schema carries that burden, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool surfaces MercadoLibre promotions/campaigns offered to the account and which listings might qualify. It also ties the tool to a concrete user question ('si conviene entrar a una promo o al Hot Sale'), which helps distinguish it from the many other ml_* tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'returns', so it stops short of a perfect 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 gives an explicit trigger: use it when someone asks whether it is worth joining a promotion or the Hot Sale. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative siblings, but the use case is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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