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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the source context (BORME real data) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, result limits, or any special handling. Since annotations cover the main safety aspect, a neutral score is appropriate.

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 single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose (search companies by name or NIF) and includes the relevant source context. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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 search tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the essential search criteria and data source. It does not elaborate on result structure or interactions with sibling tools, but given the simple search nature and available structured metadata, this is adequate.

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 50%: only 'query' has a description, and the description text 'por nombre o NIF' aligns with that. 'limit' has no description in the schema, but its name, default, and range make its purpose self-evident. The description does not add extra nuance beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without fully compensating for the uncovered parameter.

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 verb 'Busca' (search), the resource 'empresas' (companies), and specifies the search method (by name or NIF) against the Spanish commercial registry with real BORME data. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific aspects like acts, charges, contracts, or reports.

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 indicates the tool is for searching companies by name or NIF, which implies its primary use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like asientouno_informe_completo or asientouno_riesgo_empresa, nor does it exclude scenarios. The context is clear but without explicit alternatives or when-not instructions.

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