run_mx_companies_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a useful cost model ('1 point per returned record') and describes the shape of returned data, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or pagination behavior despite start_page/max_items existing.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action (search by name) before the source and return fields. No filler, though the return-field enumeration is slightly list-heavy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates the return fields and discloses the per-record cost. For a 4-parameter search tool with full schema coverage, this is largely complete, with only paging/auth behavior left unaddressed.

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 keyword, status, max_items and start_page. The description only reinforces the 'by name' search intent and adds no extra syntax or format detail; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specifies a clear verb (Search) and resource (Mexican companies) and names the precise data source, the Registro Público de Comercio company publications. It also enumerates the returned fields (name, legal form, latest publication with number/type/title/date), so an agent knows exactly which sibling this is versus run_mx_companies or run_mx_company_publications.

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 the usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as run_mx_companies or run_mx_company_publications. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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