run_pa_companies

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 usefully discloses non-schema behavior: the exact sub-registry consulted ('Consulta de Folios Suspendidos') and a concrete cost of '5 point per returned record', both of which an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by scope and cost. No wasted wording.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by listing the returned fields (name, status, register type, incorporation date, status date). Combined with the cost and coverage info, it is nearly complete for a single-parameter lookup, though failure/empty-result behavior is unstated.

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% and the schema already documents the single 'company' parameter ('Folio or registry URL. e.g. 1070'). The description's 'by folio or registry link' restates that without adding format or syntax detail, so 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+resource: 'Get one entity from the Panama Registro Público... by folio or registry link', and enumerates returned fields. 'One entity' implicitly distinguishes it from the run_pa_companies_search sibling, though that tool is never named.

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 must already have a folio or registry link), and the covered entity statuses are stated, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to run_pa_companies_search for discovery-style lookups.

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