empresa_nif

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: name-mode returns ranked candidates and explicitly excludes natural persons ('sin personas físicas'), exact matches return the profile directly, and batch is capped at 10. It is implicitly read-only but never states response shape, empty-result behavior, or the meaning/default of max_filas.

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?

Every clause carries substantive information, but the whole definition is a single run-on paragraph chained with semicolons, making it hard to parse quickly. Front-loading is good, yet the three usage modes would scan far better as separated sentences or bullets.

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 does the heavy lifting by enumerating the returned data categories, and it explains input modes. The main gap is the max_filas parameter and any note on result volume/pagination, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the nif parameter's three accepted forms (single NIF, name, list up to 10), but says nothing about max_filas, which has a default of 5 and is undocumented in both schema and description.

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 precisely enumerates the resource (empresa/entidad) and the exact data domains it returns: sector público/DIR3, subvenciones, ayudas de Estado, minimis (BDNS), ayudas AEI, prohibiciones de contratar, contratos adjudicados and actos del BORME. It also states lookup modes (NIF, name, list). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like buscar or ficha, relying on the domain specificity of 'por NIF' instead.

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?

Explicit mode-selection guidance is given: pass a NIF for full entity data, a name when you only have a name (candidates with their NIFs), and a list of up to 10 for batch. What's missing is when NOT to use it or which sibling to pick for adjacent lookups, but the conditional usage within the tool is clear.

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