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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the credit cost model ('1 point per returned record') and the shape of returned records, but says nothing about pagination behavior, whether results are capped, authentication requirements, or record freshness - gaps that matter for a scraping-backed filings tool.

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 tight sentences that front-load the resource and scope before the field list and cost note. No filler, though the returned-field enumeration could arguably be inferred from the response payload.

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 the description should reasonably explain the return surface; it lists record fields but omits pagination semantics (start_page/max_items interaction), possible empty results, and rate/credit behavior beyond the per-record note. Adequate but with clear gaps for a 3-parameter, no-annotation tool.

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%: company (registration number or URL, with example), max_items (max 250, default 25) and start_page are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the 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 resource (annual reports, announcements, registrations of one Danish company) keyed by CVR, and enumerates the returned fields (date, type, description, document links). This distinguishes it from run_dk_companies/run_dk_companies_search, which cover company registry data rather than filings, though the sibling distinction is implicit rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that a CVR is required), and no routing to or from alternatives such as run_dk_companies or run_se_company_filings. The '1 point per returned record' note is a cost signal, not usage guidance.

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