Conectar cuenta de MercadoLibre

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

The description discloses behavior beyond the annotations (two distinct modes, the auth-code round-trip, the required env vars), but it describes a state-changing operation ("Vincula una cuenta", "completa la conexión") while the annotation declares readOnlyHint=true. Linking an account persists credentials and mutates the connector's state, so the readOnly annotation is contradicted. Per the rubric, a contradiction caps this dimension at 1.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the branch behavior, then the prerequisite. Every sentence carries information and there is no padding.

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 an OAuth tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers both invocation modes and the configuration prerequisite, which is close to what an agent needs to call it correctly. It stops short of describing the returned URL shape or failure modes, and it leaves the readOnly annotation unflagged.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics the schema lacks: it explains that omitting `code` returns an authorization URL and that supplying it completes the connection, which clarifies the optional-parameter interplay. The `sitio` parameter is not mentioned, but the schema documents it sufficiently.

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 verb and resource ("Vincula una cuenta de MercadoLibre") and immediately explains the two operating modes, so the agent knows exactly what the tool accomplishes. It never names the natural counterpart (ml_desconectar) or any other sibling, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance for both branches: call with no arguments to get the browser authorization URL, call with `code` to finish the connection. It also states the prerequisite (ML_APP_ID and ML_APP_SECRET must be configured), but it does not point to alternative tools for related tasks.

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