run_ar_companies_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds genuinely useful behavioral context ('1 point per returned record' discloses cost, and it enumerates returned fields), but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or how start_page/max_items interact with pagination.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the registry scope and followed by the return fields and cost. Every clause carries information; only the parenthetical acronym list is slightly heavy.

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?

For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating returned fields and disclosing per-record cost. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation from run_ar_companies and pagination semantics, which is a modest omission.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters; baseline is 3. The description does add one useful fact beyond the schema — that keyword accepts a CUIT, not just a company name (the schema only says 'Company name') — but it adds nothing about status, max_items, or start_page.

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 names a specific verb (search) and resource (Argentina registry of legal entities, Registro Nacional de Sociedades, IGJ) and lists the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not, however, differentiate from the sibling run_ar_companies (the non-search lookup variant), leaving the sibling choice ambiguous.

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 states the searchable keys ('by company name or CUIT'), which implies usage, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs the run_ar_companies sibling and no when-not guidance. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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