Lista de seguimiento

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, yet the description explicitly advertises 'agregar' and 'quitar' actions that mutate a locally stored watchlist ('se guarda local'). The description contradicts the read-only annotation, which is the most serious defect here.

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?

Two dense sentences that front-load the resource, then the types, then the actions, with no filler. The structure is easy to parse even though it packs a lot of enum detail into one paragraph.

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 watchlist manager with no output schema, the description covers the type taxonomy, the action set and the storage locality, which is enough for correct invocation. The missing piece is the read/write safety profile, which it actively misstates rather than omits.

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 already 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning by tying each 'tipo' value to what 'ref' must contain (nickname/id of a seller, item_id, keyword whose top 10 will be watched, site/category). This mapping goes beyond the collapsed schema description of 'ref'.

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 and resource ('Administra la lista de seguimiento de competencia y tendencias') and enumerates both the supported types and actions, so an agent understands exactly what domain this covers. It does not, however, differentiate itself from related siblings such as ml_tendencias, ml_novedades_competencia or ml_historial_competencia.

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 says what the tool manages but gives no when-to-use or when-not guidance, and never mentions the closely related siblings (ml_tendencias, ml_novedades_competencia). The agent must infer that 'vigilar' means persisting a target for later monitoring rather than fetching results now.

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