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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the billing model ('1 point per returned record'), which is real cost context an agent needs, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result limits, or how start_page/max_items interact.

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 front-loaded sentence with the registry, search key, returned fields, and cost packed in; nothing is redundant. Slightly dense but no wasted words.

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 and no annotations, the description partially compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the per-record cost. However it omits pagination semantics and any guidance about result scope, leaving gaps for a 4-parameter search 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%, so the schema already documents keyword, status, max_items, and start_page, making the baseline 3 appropriate. The field list in the description (name, NIT, chamber of commerce, category, link) describes returned data rather than input parameters, so it adds little parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 (Search) and a precise resource (the Colombia company registry, named as RUES/Registro Mercantil), and adds the search key (by name). An agent can distinguish it from generic search, though it never names the sibling run_co_companies that would be the lookup counterpart.

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 phrase 'by name' implies the usage context (find companies from a name keyword), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to or from the sibling run_co_companies tool.

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