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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a behavioral trait beyond structured data — the flat 5-point cost per successful run — and enumerates the returned attributes. However, it says nothing about authentication, failure/error behavior, or rate limits.

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?

A single compact sentence plus a short cost note; the scope and identifier are front-loaded. The cost sentence is useful but appended rather than integrated, keeping it just short of ideal.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (name, status, registration date, address, legal form, economic activity, legal representation, establishments) and stating run cost. That covers what an agent needs to call it correctly, though failure modes remain unaddressed.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already documents 'NIT or registry URL. e.g. 899999068-1'. The description restates the same identifier semantics without adding format rules, validation, or edge-case behavior, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get one company from the Colombia registry (RUES, Registro Mercantil)') and pins the input to a NIT or registry URL. Sibling run_co_companies_search is not named, but 'one company ... by NIT or registry URL' vs. a search tool is reasonably inferable. It stops short of explicit sibling differentiation.

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 'one company ... by NIT or registry URL' phrasing implies usage (you already have an identifier, so you don't need search), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no 'when not to use', and no named alternative like run_co_companies_search.

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