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.