Buscar empresas por nombre

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 only that matches include the CIF; it says nothing about result ordering, partial-name matching behavior, or default result count beyond what the schema states.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the return value. The English sentence is a near-verbatim translation of the Spanish one, which is mildly redundant but serves bilingual readers.

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?

For a simple two-parameter, no-output-schema lookup tool, the description covers the action, the input basis (name), the returned key field (CIF), and the usage scenario. Only the exact match payload fields are left unspecified, which is a minor gap.

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 'query' (minLength 2) and 'limit' (1-25, default 10) are already documented in the schema. The description merely restates that lookup is by name and adds no syntax or matching-rule detail beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb (busca) and resource (empresas españolas por nombre o razón social) plus what it returns (coincidencias con su CIF). However it does not differentiate itself from the very similar sibling find_cif_by_name, so an agent must still guess which lookup tool is preferred.

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?

Explicitly states the selecting condition: useful when the CIF is not known. That is real when-to-use guidance, but it names no alternative tool and gives no exclusion for the overlapping find_cif_by_name / get_company siblings.

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