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 usefully discloses the return fields (date, type, title, link) and the billing model ('1 point per returned record'), which is real behavioral value. However it omits pagination behavior (start_page semantics) and any auth or rate-limit context.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by the returned fields and the cost note. Dense but every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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 compensates by describing the record contents and the source registry, which is enough for an agent to know what it will get. Remaining gaps are pagination behavior and lack of differentiation from the mx_companies siblings.

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 company, max_items and start_page parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that the tool targets 'one company' and ties the cost to returned records (relevant to max_items), but adds no format or syntax 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 (retrieves all published notices of one company from the Mexican Registro Público de Comercio) and enumerates the notice types (assemblies, balances, capital and structure changes). This distinguishes it from the sibling run_mx_companies/run_mx_companies_search, which cover company lookup rather than publications, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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: call this when you need the publication/notice history for a specific Mexican company. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no statement of prerequisites, and no routing to run_mx_companies or run_mx_companies_search for company discovery.

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