Novedades de competencia y tendencias

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: it is a differential report that returns only changes since the prior run. It also enumerates the categories of change (price moves, listings added/removed, estimated sales, search-leader shifts, keyword trend entries/exits), giving the agent real context about what a run produces.

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 delta-only constraint is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the enumerated report contents and a short usage note. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating what the report contains, which is exactly what the agent needs to judge fit. Combined with readOnlyHint and a single optional param, the definition is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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?

There is only one optional parameter (cuenta) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 names a specific verb+resource (recorre la lista de seguimiento y reporta cambios) and defines its scope precisely as a delta report — 'SOLO lo que cambió desde la última corrida'. An agent can distinguish it from a full-history sibling, though it never names ml_historial_competencia or ml_tendencias explicitly.

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?

It offers a cadence cue — 'Ideal como rutina semanal' — which implies the intended usage pattern. However, it names no alternative tool and states no when-not condition, leaving the agent to infer routing versus ml_historial_competencia or ml_tendencias.

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