run_co_companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the cost model ('Flat 5 points per successful run'), which is real behavioral context beyond the schema, but it omits auth/permission requirements, rate limits, and error behavior for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and source registry, with no filler. The enumerated field list is somewhat long but earns its place as the only disclosure of return values, since no output schema exists.

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 field enumeration supplies return-value context, and the identifier plus registry are clearly stated for a one-parameter lookup. Remaining gaps (auth requirements, failure behavior) are modest given the tool's simplicity.

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% and the single parameter already documents 'NIT or registry URL. e.g. 899999068-1'. The description merely restates the accepted identifier types without adding format or validation detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting (baseline 3).

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 (Get) and resource (one company from the Colombia RUES/Registro Mercantil registry) and enumerates the returned fields, making the scope concrete. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the run_co_companies_search sibling, so sibling differentiation is left to inference from 'one company'.

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 phrase 'by NIT or registry URL' implies how to invoke the tool and the identifier types it accepts, giving some usage context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this single-company lookup over run_co_companies_search, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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