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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, non-open-world operation, and the description adds genuinely new context: the 1-credit-per-page cost, the descending FOB ordering, and the default for the 'hasta' period. Pagination limits and response shape remain unstated, keeping it from 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?

Two dense sentences that front-load what the dataset is, then filters and cost. Nearly every clause earns its place; the credit-cost sentence is short and high-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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining the returned data (ranked importers per period/NCM position/country, FOB in dollars, sorted descending). Only the pagination and per-row field detail are left implicit, a minor gap for a 7-param list 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 86%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the semantics of the filters (NCM prefix granularity, month window, FOB amounts) but adds nothing about the undocumented 'pagina' parameter and does not mention the 'actividad' filter at all.

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 resource (ranking of Argentine importing companies) plus the verbs behind it (aggregated despachos, resolved to CUIT, sorted by FOB). An agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like buscar_empresas or ficha_empresa, so it stops short of a 5.

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 filter list (NCM prefix, country, jurisdiction, month window) implies when the tool is appropriate, and the credit cost is a useful selection signal. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over buscar_empresas or ficha_empresa, and no when-not guidance.

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