run_co_companies_search

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add genuinely useful non-schema context: the '1 point per returned record' cost model, which the agent cannot learn anywhere else. However, it is silent on pagination behavior, rate limits, auth requirements, or what a failed/empty search looks like.

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 tight sentences with the registry identity and query dimension front-loaded, followed by the returned fields and cost note. No filler or redundancy, though the field enumeration is slightly list-heavy for a description.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description compensates reasonably by enumerating returnable fields and disclosing the per-record cost. It is missing only secondary details (pagination semantics, rate limits), which are not essential to selecting and invoking 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the status enum and the max_items/start_page bounds. The description's field list ('name, NIT, status, chamber of commerce, category and link') actually describes return values rather than inputs, so it adds little semantic meaning 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?

The description names a specific verb (Search), a specific resource (Colombia company registry / RUES, Registro Mercantil) and the query dimension (by name). It also enumerates the fields returned (name, NIT, status, chamber of commerce, category, link), so the agent knows exactly what this tool yields. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from the sibling run_co_companies (the non-search variant).

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 name' implies this is the lookup path when a company name or keyword is known, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no mention of the sibling run_co_companies as the alternative. Usage is inferable from the tool name and keyword parameter rather than stated.

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