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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds two genuinely non-structured facts: a maximum of 8 results and that the call is free / consumes no credits — cost behavior an agent cannot see anywhere else. Return shape (bare names vs. IDs) is not disclosed.

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 tight clauses; the operation and result cap come first and the cost note follows. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it conveys scope, result cap, and cost. The remaining gap is what a result item looks like (name only, or name plus an ID usable with ficha_empresa), which matters for chaining.

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 single parameter q already documents 'texto parcial, mínimo 2 caracteres'. The description restates the partial-text semantics but adds no new syntax, encoding, or accent-matching guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 operation (autocomplete over Argentine companies matching a partial text) plus a hard cap of 8 results. It doesn't name the sibling it substitutes for (e.g. buscar_empresas), but the word 'autocomplete' plus the result cap makes the lightweight-suggestion intent legible.

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?

Usage is only implied by the term 'autocomplete' and the 2-character minimum; there is no explicit 'use this to discover company names, then call buscar_empresas / ficha_empresa for full data'. The agent must infer the discovery-vs-search split from the sibling list alone.

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