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

No annotations provided, so description bears full responsibility. It discloses returning up to 8 results, free, and for Argentine companies. It does not detail edge cases like no matches, but given the simple tool with a single parameter, the behavior is largely transparent.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose and result limit, second adds cost info. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 required param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers input (partial text), behavior (autocomplete, up to 8), scope (Argentine companies), and cost (free). It is sufficiently complete.

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% (q: 'texto parcial, mínimo 2 caracteres'), so baseline is 3. The description adds context: the parameter matches partial text of Argentine company names, and results are limited to 8, free. This adds meaningful semantic 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 clearly states 'Autocomplete: hasta 8 empresas argentinas que matchean un texto parcial', specifying the verb (autocomplete), resource (empresas argentinas), and scope (partial text, up to 8). It distinguishes from siblings like buscar_empresas which likely does full search.

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 mentions 'Gratis (no consume créditos)', indicating when to use it (free autocomplete). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context implies it's for quick partial matching, not exhaustive search. Sibling names provide additional clues.

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