Ver información registral de una compañía

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful negative scope ('No financials') so the agent won't expect balance-sheet data, but it discloses nothing about freshness, coverage limits, or error behavior for invalid RUCs.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and provenance, then lists outputs and the scope boundary. No filler or 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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the two-parameter surface is simple. The field list and 'No financials' bound are sufficient for correct invocation, though a pointer to the alternative tool for financials would complete the routing picture.

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%, so both the required ruc and the format enum are already documented in the schema. The description only restates 'by RUC' and adds no format/syntax detail beyond structured fields, so the baseline of 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?

Specific verb+resource ('registry record for one company by RUC') with an enumerated field list (status, incorporation, representative, capital, CIIU, address) and an explicit scope exclusion ('No financials') that distinguishes it from the sibling get_financials. An agent can identify what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

'No financials' implies the alternative (get_financials) without naming it or stating the condition under which to switch. Usage is implied rather than spelled out, and no mention is made of the adjacent get_sri_ruc_info sibling for tax-level data.

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