run_mx_company_publications

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the returned fields (date, type, title, link) and the cost model (1 point per returned record), but it does not explain pagination, the result cap implied by max_items, or whether 'All published notices' truly means exhaustive coverage.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler and is front-loaded with the resource and scope. The first sentence is dense and could be slightly easier to scan, but overall it is appropriately sized.

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 read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description provides useful return-field context and billing behavior. It is not fully complete because pagination behavior and guidance on choosing this tool over related company tools are absent.

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 company, max_items, and start_page. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource — published notices from the Mexican Registro Público de Comercio (PSM) for one company — and lists the covered notice types. It is specific enough to distinguish this from general company lookup tools, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from the related MX company/search siblings.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus run_mx_companies, run_mx_companies_search, or other filing/publication tools. The use case is implied by the description, but no alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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