run_ar_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral trait — the cost of '5 point per returned record' — and enumerates the response fields, but says nothing about authorization needs, rate limits, or what happens when the CUIT/URL is not found.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb, source registry, and accepted identifier before listing return fields. The field enumeration is long but earns its place because there is no output schema; nothing is redundant 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (name, company type, contract date, addresses, activities, last update) and the per-record cost. It is close to complete for a one-parameter lookup, missing only failure/empty-result behavior.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the CUIT/registry-URL input and even supplies the example 30-54668997-9. The description restates the accepted identifier forms but adds no format, validation, or normalization detail beyond the schema; 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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Get one company from the Argentina registry of legal entities (Registro Nacional de Sociedades, IGJ) by CUIT or registry link,' with the returned fields enumerated. The singular lookup-by-identifier framing implicitly separates it from run_ar_companies_search, but the sibling is never named, so differentiation is left partly to inference.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the single-record lookup used when it already has a CUIT or registry URL. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of run_ar_companies_search as the alternative for name-based lookups.

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