Answer question

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

Annotations already flag a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent write, but the description adds the critical behavioral facts those hints cannot convey: the answer becomes publicly visible on the listing, nothing is transmitted unless confirm=true, and the first call returns a preview containing the question and exact request. That is substantial disclosure beyond the structured data.

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, each load-bearing: the action and its public side effect first, then the safety gate, then the exact call sequence. Nothing is redundant and the most consequential constraint (nothing is sent unless confirm=true) is 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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the full agent-relevant surface: what the call does, that the result is public, that it is gated behind confirmation, and what the unconfirmed call returns. No output schema is needed because the preview contents are described.

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 confirm, text, and question_id are all documented in the schema itself, including the preview-vs-post meaning of confirm. The description reinforces the confirm workflow but contributes no parameter detail beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Answer) and resource (a buyer question on one of your Mercado Livre listings), and the object of the action is unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling ml_list_questions, which only lists questions rather than responding to them.

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 an explicit two-call protocol: call without confirm to obtain a preview, show it to the user, then re-call with confirm=true only after explicit approval. This is precise when-to-use and when-not-to-send guidance, with no ambiguity about sequencing.

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