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

With readOnlyHint already set, the description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotation: in the free plan, names of natural persons will be partially hidden. This is a concrete caveat an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 one substantive sentence plus one short caveat. It front-loads the resource and its contents, and every sentence earns its place.

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 a single fully documented required parameter, an output schema present, and a read-only annotation, the description provides everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly. The free-plan caveat adds useful extra context.

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%, and the empresa_id parameter is already well documented in the schema, including its provenance from asientouno_buscar_empresa. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Informe completo de una empresa' and enumerates the report contents: datos identificativos, órgano de administración, actos recientes, and señales. This clearly defines a broad company-report resource and distinguishes it from the more specialized sibling tools.

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 for when to use the tool: when a complete company overview is needed across several dimensions. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the fully explicit guidance of a 5.

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