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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior ('Devuelve hasta 50 resultados por página con el total') and credit cost ('Cuesta 1 crédito por página'), which are useful operational traits. However, it does not discuss authentication, error handling, or confirm read-only nature, leaving some gaps.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence provides valuable information: search scope, filter options, and operational details (pagination/cost). No fluff or redundant content.

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 tool with 19 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of capabilities, data source (~1.3M companies), and response limits. It lacks details on return fields and error scenarios, but the schema covers parameter specifics, so the description is sufficiently complete 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 coverage is high (89%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining filters are 'combinables' and enumerates categories (forma legal, jurisdicción, etc.), which clarifies that multiple parameters can be used together. This goes beyond the individual parameter descriptions in 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 the verb 'Busca' (searches) and the resource 'empresas' (Argentine companies), listing specific filter categories. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like buscar_dirigentes and ficha_empresa by focusing on general company search with combinable filters.

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 by name and filters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like buscar_importadores or ficha_empresa. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative selection, only the tool's own capability.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions the credit cost per page and that results are ordered by FOB descending, which are important behavioral traits. It does not describe the response format or page size, but for a read-only ranking tool 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 concise and front-loaded, combining ranking, aggregation, filters, output metrics, and cost in about 40 words. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers most essential usage context: the basis of the ranking, available filters, and cost. It omits the 'actividad' filter and does not describe the response structure, but these are partially covered by the schema field descriptions, so the description is still sufficiently complete for an agent.

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 high (86% of parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description repeats some filter information (NCM, country, jurisdiction, month window) and adds a hint about credit per page, but it does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. The 'pagina' parameter lacks a schema description and is only alluded to by the cost statement.

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 ranking of Argentine importing companies with aggregation by period, NCM position, and country of origin. It uses a specific verb-plus-resource structure ('Ranking de empresas importadoras') that distinguishes it from sibling search 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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need importer rankings filtered by NCM prefix, country, jurisdiction, or month window. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer when to use it.

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 provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the per-page credit cost ('Cuesta 1 crédito por página'), the restriction to unadjudicated calls, and the returned fields. It does not detail response format or error behavior, but as a search tool, these are acceptable gaps.

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 with the first front-loading the verb and resource. It efficiently packs scope, fields, filters, and cost without redundancy or 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?

For a search tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers resource, scope, filters, cost, and returned fields. It omits minor details like sorting or default page size, but is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 80% (4 of 5 properties have descriptions). The description adds meaning by stating that parameters function as filters ('Filtrable por texto, rubro, organismo y solo-abiertas') and by acknowledging pagination cost, partially compensating for the undocumented 'pagina' parameter.

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 opens with 'Busca llamados a licitación del Estado argentino' which clearly states the verb (search) and the specific resource (Argentine government tender calls). It lists key attributes (organismo, objeto, rubro, expediente, fecha de apertura) and the scope 'todavía sin adjudicar', distinguishing it from sibling tools that search people or companies.

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 provides a clear context for use: searching unadjudicated tender calls with specific filters. It implicitly differentiates from siblings by domain, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it.

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 full burden. It discloses the credit cost ('Cuesta 1 crédito') and that additional campos incrementally increase the cost, which is meaningful operational behavior beyond the schema. It does not cover latency, data freshness, or failure modes, so it is not a perfect 5, but the pricing detail is genuinely helpful.

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 dense enumeration of the report's contents, which is information-dense rather than concise. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and CUIT requirement, lists contents, then covers cost and the optional campos parameter. Every sentence contributes value, though the long list of sections could be formatted more cleanly.

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 partially compensates by enumerating the report's sections, which tells an agent what data categories to expect. It does not describe the response structure, field nesting, or error cases, but for a broad report-fetching tool, the section list provides reasonable completeness. A perfect score would require more detail on the output shape.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minor value by explaining that campos=beneficiarios includes 'beneficiarios finales estimados' and by listing the available campo options with their credit costs, but this largely repeats what the schema already states. It does not materially enrich the parameter semantics 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 states a specific resource (ficha completa de una empresa argentina) and the key input (CUIT), and enumerates the major content sections: registral data, activity, directors and partners, Boletín Oficial acts, BCRA credit status, rejected checks, foreign trade, state contracts, and sanctions. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling ficha_persona by targeting companies rather than people.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this tool when you have a CUIT and want a comprehensive company report. It also provides guidance on optional fields ('Con campos=beneficiarios agrega los beneficiarios finales estimados') and their credit costs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavior: the cost of 1 credit, and it details the content scope (identity, tax condition, linked companies with roles). However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe response format, error conditions, or any authorization requirements. It adds moderate context but lacks full transparency.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose, then uses a colon to list contents, and ends with the cost. Every clause adds value: the resource, the data categories, the condition ('cuando es actor económico'), and the credit cost. No fluff, 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?

For a simple lookup tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns (identity, tax status, linked companies/roles), the conditional fiscal data, and the cost. It does not describe the exact response structure, but that is partially mitigated by the content list. The absence of an output schema makes the description the primary source of expected data, and it provides a clear overview.

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% and the only parameter 'cuit' is already fully described in the schema (11 digits). The description mentions 'por CUIT/CUIL' but adds no additional semantics, format details, or default behavior beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific resource ('Ficha de una persona por CUIT/CUIL') and enumerates the exact content: identity, AFIP tax status, and linked companies with roles. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'ficha_empresa' (company record) and 'buscar_empresas' (search). The verbiage is action-oriented and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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: when you have a CUIT/CUIL and need a person's fiscal identity and companies. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions (e.g., 'use this when you need AFIP status, not for general search'). The cost note ('Cuesta 1 crédito') is a qualifier but not a usage guideline.

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.