Buscar negocios en un estado de Mexico

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the main query behavior and national fallback, but does not describe result shape, pagination implications, read-only nature, or what happens with invalid state names. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 followed by a decision-relevant condition. The first clause slightly restates the title, but every sentence 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 schema richly documents all four parameters, and the description provides selection context. However, with no output schema or annotations, it would benefit from stating what kind of records are returned and when to prefer sibling search tools such as denue_buscar_por_nombre.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds only the general 'keyword + state' concept and does not add format details or examples beyond the schema's own examples.

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 states a specific action (search economic establishments) with a concrete resource and query style ('por palabra clave'), plus a geographic scope ('estado especifico... o nacional'). This clearly distinguishes it from coordinate-based siblings like denue_buscar_cercania.

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 gives an explicit use condition: use this when there is no exact coordinate, only a region. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the region-vs-coordinate distinction is enough to route an agent correctly.

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