buscar_negocios

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does convey the read-only, look-up nature and the result cap (1–50), but says nothing about truncation behavior when the limit is hit, whether a total match count is returned, or any institutional/rate constraints on the DENUE source. Useful but incomplete for an unannotated tool.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by the return payload, then a compact Args block. No sentence is redundant; the Spanish text is dense and each line adds distinct information.

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 description need not spell out return values (it does anyway, briefly), and it covers input semantics thoroughly. The only real gap is behavioral edge cases: what happens when results exceed the limit, and whether an empty or ambiguous 'area' string is resolved or rejected.

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 coverage is 0% and the description fully compensates: every one of the five parameters is explained, including allowed SCIAN code lengths (2, 3, 4, 6 digits), the personal-size range 1–7 with a cross-reference to 'contar_negocios', the limit range, and the area defaulting to the country. This meaning is genuinely unavailable from the bare 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?

States a specific verb ('Busca'), the resource ('negocios'), the search keys (nombre o giro), the geographic scope (país, estado, municipio) and the source (DENUE), then enumerates the returned fields. That scope description implicitly separates it from radius-based 'negocios_cercanos' and from the count-only 'contar_negocios'.

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 supplies a conditional usage rule ('Opcional si se da actividad') and points to 'contar_negocios' for interpreting the personal-size codes. However, it never says when to prefer this over 'negocios_cercanos' (proximity search) or when the geographic area argument is required versus defaulting to the whole country, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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