Métricas de Product Ads en vivo

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. 'Al momento de la consulta' usefully signals the data is live/current rather than cached, which is genuine added value. It does not address rate limits, auth scope, or aggregation latency, so it stays at a solid 3.

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?

Purpose and the two modes are front-loaded in a single dense sentence, followed by a short sentence on the dias parameter. Nothing is padded, though the first sentence is quite long and packs several concepts together.

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 proactively enumerates the returned fields for both modes (inversión, impresiones, clics, CTR, CPC, ACOS, unidades, facturación; estado, presupuesto, resultados), which is exactly what fills the output gap. The only omission is any mention of the cuenta parameter, which the schema already covers.

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 only 67%, and item_id has no schema description at all. The description fills that gap by explaining exactly what item_id does (listing ad detail vs. advertiser campaigns), and restates dias semantics (1 = hoy, default 30). cuenta is left to the schema, but the description compensates well for the undisclosed parameter.

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 (métricas) and resource (Product Ads / publicidad) and clarifies the two operating modes: with item_id returns the ad detail for a listing, without it returns the advertiser's campaigns. This is far beyond a tautology and lets an agent predict behavior. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby metrics siblings like ml_metricas or ml_rentabilidad, keeping it short of a 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 implies usage by explaining that item_id switches between listing-level ad detail and advertiser-level campaigns, so an agent can infer which mode to request. However it never states when to prefer this tool over general metrics tools (ml_metricas, ml_rentabilidad) or any prerequisites/exclusions. Usage is implied, not explicit.

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