run_ec_companies_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful behaviors — the registry returns up to 15 matches per search and costs 1 point per returned record — but says nothing about authentication, error behavior, or what happens on zero matches. Partial coverage only.

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?

It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and every clause carries information (registry, fields, cap, cost). The parenthetical structure makes it slightly run-on, but there is no 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 and no annotations, the description compensates reasonably by disclosing the result cap and per-record cost. It stops short of describing return fields or credentials, but for a two-param search tool it is close to complete.

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 both parameters (keyword, max_items) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the name-based input and the 15-item cap but adds no syntax, format, or matching-rule detail beyond what the schema provides. 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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Ecuador company registry (Superintendencia de Compañías)'), and lists the identifying fields (expediente number, RUC, name). It's clear and specific, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling run_ec_companies, which presumably retrieves a known company, leaving the search-vs-fetch split 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 — you search by company name — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative such as run_ec_companies for direct lookups. An agent can infer the context but receives no routing guidance.

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