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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a cost trait ('1 point per returned record'), which is valuable beyond structured fields, but says nothing about rate limits, auth, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema's page/size params imply.

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 tight sentence plus a cost note. The core purpose is front-loaded and nothing is wasted, though the returned-field list and cost clause are packed into one long sentence.

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 it is genuinely helpful that the description enumerates the returned fields (name, registration number, status, address, link). Combined with disclosed cost and a fully covered schema, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though sibling routing remains 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 fully. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., wildcard or exact-match name behavior); 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 (search), resource (Denmark company registry / CVR), and the query dimension (by company name), plus the returned fields. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling run_dk_companies, so an agent must infer the distinction between lookup and search.

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: search Danish companies by name. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, and the obvious alternative (run_dk_companies for a direct identifier lookup) is never named, nor is run_dk_company_filings mentioned.

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