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.