buscar_nombre

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses accent-insensitivity ('sin acentos') and the FTS5 full-text search mechanism, which tells an agent that 'garcia' will match 'García'. However, it does not explicitly confirm the read-only nature of the operation, though 'busca' strongly implies it, nor does it mention auth, rate limits, or dataset freshness.

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 eight-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then the search method, then the technical detail (FTS5, sin acentos). Zero waste, no repetition of schema content, and every element earns its place.

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?

The tool is a simple search with full schema coverage and an output schema, so return values are already documented. The description covers the search method and accent behavior adequately. However, with zero annotations, it lacks explicit confirmation of read-only behavior, any note on rate limits or data freshness, and any reference to the dataset parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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%, with all three parameters (texto, limite, dataset) fully documented in the schema including defaults and constraints. The description adds marginal value by disclosing accent-insensitivity relevant to the texto parameter, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, 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 uses a specific verb ('Busca' = searches) with a specific resource ('contribuyentes' = taxpayers) and a precise method ('por nombre / razón social parcial' = by partial name/business name). It clearly differentiates from the closest sibling verificar_rfc, which is RFC-based lookup, since this tool searches by name fragment rather than by tax ID.

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?

The 'por nombre / razón social parcial' phrasing implicitly signals that this tool is for name-fragment lookups, and the sibling names (verificar_rfc, verificar_lote) suggest the alternatives. However, the description never explicitly states when to use it versus those alternatives, so an agent must infer the decision boundary rather than being told it.

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