Perfil de riesgo

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the data provenance (derived from BORME publications), the output contents ('nivel y explicación'), and a plan/tier requirement ('Plan Business') that acts as an access precondition.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the resource and derivation, then the event categories, then the output and plan note. Every clause earns its place, though the parenthetical enumeration of BORME events is slightly long.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so ('nivel y explicación'). The single required parameter is fully covered by the schema, and the plan limitation is disclosed. It falls short only on sibling routing, which matters given the overlapping BORME-oriented siblings.

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 single cif parameter is fully documented in the schema itself (format, example, accepted spaces/dashes). The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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?

It names a specific resource (perfil de riesgo de una empresa), states the derivation source (publicaciones en el BORME), and lists the triggering event types (concursos, disoluciones, cierres de hoja, cambios de administradores). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_borme_history, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_borme_history, get_company, or verify_company. The only usage-adjacent signal is 'Plan Business', which hints at an entitlement gate but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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