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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses sort order ('newest first'), the returned fields (date, announcement type, link), and the cost model ('1 point per returned record'). It omits pagination behavior despite start_page/max_items existing, but the added context is substantial.

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 dense sentence with the resource and access method front-loaded, followed by output fields and cost. No filler and every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly names the return fields (date, announcement type, link) and ordering. It is nearly complete for a list tool; only pagination semantics and explicit sibling routing are missing.

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 all three parameters. The description restates the company input as organisation number or registry URL but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, and says nothing about how max_items/start_page interact with 'newest first'.

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 ('List') and resource ('registry announcements (Kunngjøringer) of a Norway company'), names the registry (Brønnøysundregistrene), and gives the input scope (organisation number or registry URL). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings run_no_companies and run_no_companies_search, which cover company data/search rather than filings.

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 accepted input forms (organisation number or registry URL) imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus run_no_companies_search or the equivalent filings tools in other countries. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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