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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose useful behavior beyond the schema: the covered entity states (suspended, dissolved, merged, closed) and the pricing model ('5 point per returned record'). It omits auth requirements, behavior on no-match, and response shape.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: identity/scope first, then cost. Front-loaded and free of filler, with only the slightly awkward '5 point per returned record' phrasing as a minor blemish.

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, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (name, status, register type, incorporation date, status date) and the covered entity states. It is nearly complete for a single-entity lookup; a note on no-match behavior or pagination would close the remaining 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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'Folio or registry URL. e.g. 1070'. The description restates that the input can be a folio or registry link without adding format or validation detail, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 and resource ('Get one entity from the Panama Registro Público'), names the source section (Consulta de Folios Suspendidos), and enumerates the returned fields. The word 'one' implicitly contrasts with the sibling run_pa_companies_search, though that sibling is never named 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 by 'one entity ... by folio or registry link', which signals single-record lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs run_pa_companies_search guidance or statement of prerequisites. An agent must infer the lookup-vs-search split.

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