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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the cost ('5 point per returned record') and enumerates the returned fields, which is real behavioral value, but it omits auth/prerequisite needs and what happens on a missing or invalid publication number.

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 front-loaded sentence carrying the lookup scope and return fields, followed by a short cost note; little waste, though the return-field enumeration makes the sentence long.

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?

Given a single fully-documented parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description compensates well by listing the returned fields (name, legal form, publication type, title/date, link, history). Only failure/missing-record behavior is 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents itself as a publication number with an example. The phrase 'by publication number' matches the schema without adding syntax, format, or edge-case guidance beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Get) and resource (one company notice from Mexican RPC publications) and lists the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It implies a single-record lookup by publication number but does not name run_mx_companies_search or run_mx_company_publications, so sibling differentiation relies on inference.

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 only implied by 'by publication number' – the agent can infer this is a single-record lookup rather than a search, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative (e.g. use run_mx_companies_search to find a publication number first).

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