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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the 15-match cap and the cost model ('1 point per returned record'), which is real operational context, but it omits auth requirements, error behavior, and result format.

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 no filler; the registry name and search fields come before the parenthetical constraints. Slightly dense with nested parentheses but nothing is wasted.

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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key facts an agent needs: what is searched, the match cap, the cost, and the fields returned. Auth/error behavior is the only notable gap.

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 both parameters (keyword, max_items) are already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the name-search semantics and the 15-item limit but adds no syntax or formatting 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 ('Search') and resource ('Ecuador company registry / Superintendencia de Compañías') and even names the fields involved (expediente number, RUC, name). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling run_ec_companies.

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 implied: search the Ecuador registry by company name. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when NOT to use it, and no reference to the alternative run_ec_companies tool that a sibling-aware agent would need.

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