run_mx_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the return payload (company name, legal form, type, title, date, link, publication history) and a cost signal ('5 point per returned record'), but says nothing about auth requirements, behavior on an invalid publication number, or rate limits.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the action, source, and key, followed by a short cost note. Every clause earns its place, though the field enumeration makes it long.

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 single-record lookup with one fully-documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers what comes back. It omits how an agent should obtain a valid publication number and any failure behavior, which leaves a real gap in the workflow.

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% and the schema already documents the 'company' parameter as a publication number with an example. The description's 'by publication number' corroborates and clarifies the misleadingly-named parameter, but adds no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb (Get one company notice), the exact source (Mexican Registro Público de Comercio / PSM publications), the lookup key (publication number), and the returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from run_mx_companies_search, though it never names its siblings explicitly.

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 publication number' implies the prerequisite (you must already have a publication number), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no routing to run_mx_companies_search or run_mx_company_publications to obtain that number, and no stated exclusions.

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