run_es_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 does disclose a meaningful trait beyond the schema — the '10 point per returned record' cost — and enumerates the response payload in detail. However, it says nothing about error behavior for an invalid NIF, authentication requirements, or rate limits for a paid registry lookup.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and source, then a field enumeration, and the cost constraint is tacked on clearly at the end. The field list is long but every item informs the agent about available output, so it largely earns its place.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields (status, address, legal form, identifiers, officers, branches, etc.) and the cost, which is exactly the information an agent needs to decide whether to call it. Only the lack of error/permission handling for the lookup keeps it from a 5.

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% for the single 'company' parameter, and the description's mention of 'NIF/CIF or registry link' merely restates what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter work.

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 and resource ('Get one company from the Spain registry') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling run_es_companies_search by being a single-record exact lookup. The field list confirms exactly what comes back, so an agent can tell it apart from the search variant without opening either schema.

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 description implies the usage context by naming the identifier input (NIF/CIF or registry link) and by saying 'get one company', which contrasts with the sibling search tool, but it never explicitly says when to use this versus run_es_companies_search or what to do if the NIF is unknown. 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.