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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the commercial/behavioral detail: 1 credit per page, page size of 10 or 50 depending on the account, and that a total is returned alongside the page. It does not state ordering or what happens on empty results, keeping it below a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence, but it is front-loaded with the core action and filter list, then closes with return shape and cost. No filler; slightly heavy for one sentence but every clause carries 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?

For a 23-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape (page + total), pricing, and geo-filter exclusivity, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Missing defaults (page size per account, radio_km default of 1 is only in the schema) and result ordering keep it at 4.

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?

With 91% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: that filters are combinable, the sellos can be boolean-combined, and that only one of cerca/recuadro/departamento may be used (the schema only repeats this on cerca). It does not explain q's matching semantics beyond 'razón social'.

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 ('Busca empresas argentinas por razón social y/o filtros combinables'), enumerates the filter families, and names the corpus size (~1,3M). It signals search-vs-detail implicitly but never names ficha_empresa or buscar_importadores as the alternative, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Describes what the filters do and the credit cost, which implies usage, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to ficha_empresa / buscar_importadores. The mutual-exclusivity rule for the geo filters is the only real usage constraint stated.

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