Asignar alias a una empresa

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false) already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds modest context by explaining that the tool assigns a readable name, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as persistence, overwrite behavior, or permissions. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes to meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no nested objects) and the presence of annotations and full schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete. It provides the core purpose and the schema handles parameter details, making it adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage: both 'empresa' and 'alias' have descriptive examples ('Ruta de la empresa' and 'Nombre legible'). The description adds a little context by explaining the rationale (refer by name instead of path), but it does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 clearly states the verb 'Da' (gives) and the resource 'un nombre legible a una empresa' (a readable name to a company), making the purpose specific. It also explains the benefit of referring to a company by name instead of path. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools, so it misses the top score.

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 description implies the usage context: you use this tool when you want a readable alias for a company. It does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidelines.

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