empresas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the search scope, returned fields, and cost per page. However, it does not mention pagination behavior or error conditions, which are important for a search tool.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by constraints and cost. No wasted words.

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 no output schema and partial schema coverage, the description provides key details: search scope, returned data, and cost per page. It is adequate for a straightforward search tool, though pagination behavior could be clearer.

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 50% (only 'q' parameter described). The description adds context about searching by name but does not elaborate on the 'pagina' parameter beyond implying pagination via cost per page. The description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the missing 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?

The description explicitly states the tool searches for people (directors, partners, managers, etc.) by name and lists returned fields (CUIT, name, number of linked companies). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'buscar_empresas'.

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?

The description explains what the tool does and mentions the cost per page, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives among siblings.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses pagination (up to 50 results per page), total result count, and cost (1 credit per page). It does not mention authentication or side effects, but as a read-only search, these are not critical.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and key details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description explains pagination, total count, and cost. It also mentions database size and filter categories. However, it does not describe the fields returned per result or sorting behavior, but this is acceptable for a search tool.

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 57% (4 of 7 parameters described). The description adds context by listing filter types, but some parameters like ciudad and pagina lack descriptions. The description does not fully compensate for missing parameter details.

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 that the tool searches for Argentine companies by name and filters, with details on database size, pagination limit, and cost. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like buscar_dirigentes and ficha_empresa.

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?

The description implies usage for searching companies with filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ficha_empresa for detail retrieval). No when-not guidance is provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the cost (1 credit) which is a behavioral trait, but does not mention idempotency, permissions, or side effects. The tool is likely read-only, but this is not stated.

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 lists contents efficiently. It is concise but slightly lengthy due to enumeration; however, every item adds value.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly lists return contents (registry, activity, directors, partners, corporate acts, credit situation, rejected checks, contracts, sanctions) and cost. It is complete for a single-parameter retrieval tool.

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 already has 100% coverage describing the CUIT parameter (11 digits with or without hyphens). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond 'por CUIT', so it meets the baseline for high 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides a complete file of an Argentine company by CUIT, listing specific categories (registry, activity, directors, partners, corporate acts, credit situation, rejected checks, contracts, sanctions). It distinguishes from siblings like buscar_dirigentes and ficha_persona by focusing on comprehensive company data.

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?

The description implies use for full company information by CUIT and mentions cost (1 credit), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives. Context from sibling tools suggests it is the go-to for comprehensive company files.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the cost (1 credit) and indicates the output (identity and companies with roles), but does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or data sensitivity.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and cost. Zero waste, front-loaded with key information.

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 no output schema, the description explains the output (identity and companies with roles) and cost. It is fairly complete for a simple lookup tool, though it could mention output format or pagination.

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%, baseline is 3. The description only restates the parameter purpose (by CUIT/CUIL) and does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it provides a profile of a person by CUIT/CUIL, including identity and all linked Argentine companies with roles. It distinguishes from siblings like ficha_empresa (company profile) and buscar_dirigentes (search leaders).

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?

The description implies use when you have a CUIT/CUIL to retrieve a person's profile. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like buscar_dirigentes, but the context from sibling names provides some guidance.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses the tool is a read operation and 'Gratis' (free) indicating no credit consumption. This is adequate for a simple quota check.

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 concise sentence in Spanish. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no wasted words.

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?

For a simple tool with no parameters or output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and notes it's free. It could specify output format, but overall adequate.

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?

No parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by specifying the tool returns credit balance and consumption, compensating for the lack of output 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves the credit balance and monthly consumption for the API key. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are all search/profile tools.

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?

The description implies usage for checking credits before API calls, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full responsibility. It discloses returning up to 8 results, free, and for Argentine companies. It does not detail edge cases like no matches, but given the simple tool with a single parameter, the behavior is largely transparent.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose and result limit, second adds cost info. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 required param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers input (partial text), behavior (autocomplete, up to 8), scope (Argentine companies), and cost (free). It is sufficiently complete.

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% (q: 'texto parcial, mínimo 2 caracteres'), so baseline is 3. The description adds context: the parameter matches partial text of Argentine company names, and results are limited to 8, free. This adds meaningful semantic 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?

The description clearly states 'Autocomplete: hasta 8 empresas argentinas que matchean un texto parcial', specifying the verb (autocomplete), resource (empresas argentinas), and scope (partial text, up to 8). It distinguishes from siblings like buscar_empresas which likely does full search.

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?

The description mentions 'Gratis (no consume créditos)', indicating when to use it (free autocomplete). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context implies it's for quick partial matching, not exhaustive search. Sibling names provide additional clues.

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