Buscar causa por RUT de empresa

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about companies lacking Clave Única, but it does not disclose failure modes or pagination behavior, and the erroneous tribunal requirement reduces confidence.

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 very short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and a concise rationale for companies. The only flaw is the misleading 'Exige indicar el tribunal' sentence, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The rich input schema and output schema cover the technical details, and the description supplies the key use-case context for legal entities. However, the false statement about needing a tribunal leaves the agent with conflicting guidance about an important optional parameter, so the description is not fully reliable.

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%, with each parameter well-documented (e.g., rut format, corte false negatives, paginas failure behavior), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself adds no parameter detail and actually contradicts the schema by implying tribunal is required.

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 opens with 'Busca causas de una persona jurídica por su RUT', a specific verb+resource+scope statement that clearly identifies what the tool does. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like buscar_causa_por_rit and buscar_causa_por_nombre.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: it is 'la única vía para empresas' and explains why they do not appear in 'Mis Causas'. However, it incorrectly states 'Exige indicar el tribunal' while the schema marks tribunal as optional with default null, which is a misleading usage instruction.

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