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 that results cover suspended, dissolved, merged and closed entities and that billing is 1 point per returned record, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler; the source registry and the searchable fields are front-loaded and the cost note closes cleanly. Sizing is appropriate for a single-purpose search tool.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by listing the returned fields (name, folio, status, register type, incorporation date, status date) and the entity coverage plus cost. Combined with a fully documented input schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though pagination behavior remains unspecified.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented, including the keyword example and enum for status. The description only restates the name-or-folio input mode, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 (search) and a precisely scoped resource (Panama Registro Público, Consulta de Folios Suspendidos), and enumerates the fields returned. However, it never contrasts itself with the sibling run_pa_companies, so an agent must infer the division of labor from the name suffix alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the sibling run_pa_companies as an alternative. The description is purely descriptive of scope rather than directive, leaving routing to inference.

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