Auditar mis publicaciones

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

readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read; the description goes further by disclosing ordering ('devuelve las peores primero') and what the audit flags (short/padded title, few photos, no description, critical stock, lost catalog, paused listing). It does not disclose pagination or result limits behavior, but the output-shaping context is real added value.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability, then the flagged conditions, then the routing cue. The condition list is long but each item earns its place by telling the agent what the audit surfaces. Minor redundancy between the semáforo phrase and the condition list.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns — and it does (worst-first ordering plus concrete remediation action per listing). With all 3 params documented and safety covered by annotations, only per-field return detail is thin.

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 (cuenta, estado, limite) is documented with defaults. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraints, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the full load.

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?

Specific verb (auditar/listar) plus resource (publicaciones) plus a distinguishing angle: a quality 'semáforo' with remediation per listing. An agent can tell this apart from ml_publicaciones (plain list) and ml_publicacion (single-listing detail) without opening any schema.

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 closing line 'Ideal para "¿qué publicaciones tengo que mejorar?"' gives an explicit triggering context. However, it never names an alternative (ml_publicaciones, ml_actualizar_publicacion) or states when-not to use it, so routing is contextual rather than prescriptive.

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