Buscar compañías en el registro de Supercías

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond annotations: a cold-start latency warning ("First call after 6h can take 30-40 s"), which is the kind of operational context an agent needs for timeout planning. It does not mention result-size limits, but the latency disclosure is substantive.

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 dense sentences; the core capability is front-loaded and the latency caveat is appended at the end without burying the main point. Slight redundancy in enumerating return fields, but overall tight and well-ordered.

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, the return-value enumeration is partly redundant, but it aids tool selection. All six parameters are schema-documented, the read-only nature is covered by annotations, and the latency caveat fills an operational gap. Adequate for a filterable search tool with no required params.

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 all six parameters (limit, query, format, offset, provincia, situacion_legal) are already documented in the schema, including defaults, max, enum, and filter examples. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Search Supercías' registry of 226k+ companies") plus the primary search keys (name or RUC) and the fields surfaced (legal status, incorporation, representative, capital, CIIU, address). It is clearly distinguishable from generic search tools, but it never names or contrasts with the obvious detail sibling get_compania_info, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

It tells the agent the tool matches on name or RUC, which implies a lookup-style search, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternative routing (e.g., use get_compania_info once you have an identifier). Usage is only implied.

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