Costa Rica Company Lookup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers substantial behavioral context: it accepts three distinct cédula variants (física, jurídica, DIMEX), enumerates the returned data (name, regime, activities, compliance status), explains the compliance flags (moroso/omiso), and states the source is official and keyless. It does not disclose failure behavior for malformed/non-existent cédulas, rate limits, or data freshness, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Roughly 70 words, front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, then progressively detailed: input format, return payload, use case, and source. Every sentence earns its place — the source/no-key note and the moroso/omiso gloss both add information the agent could not infer from the schema or annotations.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema already documenting return structure, the description covers the essential operational facts: what identifier to pass, what comes back, and the authoritative keyless source. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior — what happens when a cédula is invalid or not found, and how fresh the registry data is — which is not disclosed anywhere.

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 0% and the cedula parameter is just a bare string, so the description must fully compensate — and it does. It specifies the exact accepted formats: 9-digit cédula física, 10-digit jurídica, or DIMEX. This converts an opaque string parameter into something the agent can validate and format correctly before calling.

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 first sentence states a specific verb ('look up'), resource ('Costa Rican taxpayer/company'), identifier ('cédula'), and registry ('Hacienda'), making the tool's scope immediately unambiguous. It also self-differentiates from siblings: it is clearly a Costa Rican registry lookup rather than a validation-only tool like validate_tax_id or a Brazilian lookup like brazil_company_lookup, and the cédula formats and rich return payload reinforce that distinction.

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 gives an explicit context for when the tool adds value: 'valuable for KYC/AML and onboarding', which tells the agent the intended use case. However, it never names alternatives or states when-not-to-use scenarios — e.g., it does not route to validate_tax_id for simple format checks — so it stops short of the explicit exclusions a 5 requires.

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