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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the source registry, the returned field set, and the billing rate ('5 point per returned record'), which is real added context. However, it says nothing about not-found behavior, auth requirements, or whether the lookup is a pure read — gaps that matter when nothing structured backs it up.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and identifier, followed by the returned fields and cost in a single tight sentence. The field enumeration is somewhat long but earns its place given there is no output schema. No filler.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields (name, status history, registration date, address, legal form, municipality/county, special names) and the billing cost. For a simple one-parameter lookup with no annotations this is close to sufficient; only error/edge-case behavior is 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the single parameter ('Organisation number or registry URL. e.g. 556012-5790'). The description restates the same accepted forms (organisation number or registry link) without adding format syntax, validation rules, or fallback behavior, 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 (Get), a precisely bounded resource (one company), the authoritative source (Bolagsverket/Sweden registry), and the two accepted identifiers. The singular 'one company ... by organisation number or registry link' clearly separates it from the sibling run_se_companies_search, which returns sets rather than a single looked-up record.

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 implies usage (look up a single known company by its identifier) but never states when to prefer this over run_se_companies_search or run_se_company_filings. No exclusions, no prerequisites, no note about what to do when the identifier is unknown — the agent must infer the routing from the wording alone.

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