Despachos y envíos (logística)

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful domain context — that FULL shipments are handled by MercadoLibre and that it also reports the delay-rate reputation metric — but says nothing about pagination, limits, or empty-result behavior.

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?

Everything is packed into one long sentence opened by a persona framing ('La lista de Leo, el coordinador de logística del equipo'), which delays the actual content. The enumeration of shipment states and dimensions is informative but not front-loaded or scannable.

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 does carry some of the return burden by naming the shipment states, types, destinations, and the reputation delay rate. However, it leaves the boundary with ml_envios undefined and gives no sense of result shape or volume for a two-parameter listing tool.

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%, with both dias and cuenta documented inline (default 7, max 30; user_id per ml_cuentas). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a concrete resource (envíos de ventas recientes) and enumerates the relevant subsets: pendientes de despachar, demorados, no entregados, devueltos, por tipo (FULL/Flex/Colecta) y destino. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling ml_envios, leaving overlap ambiguity.

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?

Usage is only implied through the framing 'qué tenés que despachar y hasta cuándo', which suggests operational triage. There is no explicit when-to-use vs ml_envios/ml_ordenes, no prerequisites, and no statement of when this is the wrong tool to reach for.

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