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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses ordering (newest first), the returned field set, and cost ('1 point per returned record'), but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond the start_page parameter.

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, front-loaded sentence that puts the verb and resource first and packs the return-field list and cost note efficiently. It is dense but 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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields (case number, type, status, dates, financial period). Combined with the documented parameters and the ordering/cost note, this is nearly complete for a read-only listing 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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description only restates the 'organisation number or registry URL' input for the company field and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema's own example.

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?

The description names a specific verb (List), resource (most recent registry cases of a Sweden company / Bolagsverket), scope (newest first), and enumerates the returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like run_se_companies and run_se_companies_search by country and by the filings-specific resource.

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?

It implies usage by describing the accepted identifier ('by organisation number or registry URL') but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to run_se_companies / run_se_companies_search. The agent must infer that this tool is for filing/registry cases rather than general company data.

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