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 add real behavioral value by disclosing the cost model ('5 point per returned record') and the specific fields returned (expediente, RUC, registered name), but it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or what happens when the identifier is not found.

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?

One tight sentence plus a short pricing clause; the lookup keys and registry are front-loaded. No filler, though the pricing note reads as slightly tacked on.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (expediente, RUC, registered name) and the cost per record. The main remaining gap is the absence of error/not-found and permission behavior for a tool with no annotations.

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 a single well-documented parameter ('Expediente or RUC. e.g. 7154'), so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the same two accepted identifier types without adding format or validation detail 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+resource ('Get one company from the Ecuador registry') plus the source authority (Superintendencia de Compañías) and the accepted lookup keys. The word 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from a bulk/search tool, but it never names the obvious sibling run_ec_companies_search.

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 expediente number or RUC' implies a single-record lookup requiring a known identifier, which hints at when to use it over the search sibling. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative, so the agent must infer the routing.

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