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 cost model ('1 point per returned record') and the returned fields, which is real behavioral context. However, it says nothing about read-only nature, pagination behavior despite start_page, or result limits beyond the schema, so gaps remain.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded and the cost note appended. No filler, though the field enumeration is slightly list-like rather than prose-efficient.

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, so the description compensates by naming the return fields (name, organisation number, postal code and place, link). With cost disclosed and 100% schema coverage for inputs, this is nearly complete; pagination semantics could still be clarified.

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 coverage is 100%, so keyword, max_items (up to 250, default 25), and start_page are all documented in the schema. The description only implies 'by company name' for keyword and adds no syntax or ordering details beyond the schema, 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 ('Search') and resource (the Norway company registry, with the native names Brønnøysundregistrene/Enhetsregisteret), and lists the fields returned. This lets an agent distinguish it from sibling lookups like run_no_companies or run_no_company_filings, though it does not name or contrast those siblings explicitly.

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 the Norwegian registry by company name. There is no statement of when to prefer this over run_no_companies (detail lookup) or run_no_company_filings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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