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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions '1 point per returned record,' which hints at cost but is cryptic. Critical details like rate limits, authentication requirements, or response structure are omitted. The description adds little beyond basic functionality, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate safely.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and returned data, plus a brief note on cost. It avoids redundancy and is well-structured, though the cost note could be clearer.

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 must carry the full burden of informing the agent about behavior, usage, and return values. It mentions returned fields but does not explain pagination, error handling, or when to use alternatives. For a search tool in a context with many siblings, this is insufficient.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented (keyword, status, max_items, start_page). The description does not add further semantic details about these parameters, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. 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 clearly states the tool searches Mexican companies by name in the Registro Público de Comercio, specifies the data source (PSM), and lists the returned fields (name, legal form, latest publication details). It does not distinguish from the sibling run_mx_companies, which is likely a lookup-by-identifier tool, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing between them.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_mx_companies or run_mx_company_publications. The description only states the search mechanism and output, without context or exclusions. This forces the agent to infer usage from the name and siblings.

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