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

The description discloses significant runtime behavior beyond the annotations: it starts a bound Apify Actor with the caller's APIFY_TOKEN, may consume Apify usage, waits up to 60 seconds, returns at most 1,000 source-linked rows, omits roles/contacts/street addresses, and modifies no government records. This is consistent with the annotations; openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false align with the external Actor execution.

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?

The description is three sentences and front-loads the core purpose, followed by licensing/privacy context and then behavioral constraints. Each sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy, though it is slightly dense.

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?

For a tool that launches an external Actor and consumes usage, it covers the important contextual details: caller token, cost implication, timeout, row cap, no record modification, and a privacy caveat. It lacks an explicit output schema, but the description's 'source-linked rows' and omitted-field list give an agent adequate expectations for selecting and calling it.

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% and the nested parameter descriptions are already rich, covering purpose enums, receipt hashes, truncation detection, and name-search ambiguity. The description's 'exact nine-digit' and 'bounded' phrasing largely mirrors what the schema already states, so it adds little new parameter-level meaning.

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 clear resource ('Norwegian organisation-number evidence or bounded company-name research') and a specific source (Brønnøysundregistrene). It is not a tautology and is distinct from the other civicdataforge tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 opens with 'Use for exact nine-digit...' and adds clear exclusions: it 'never issues a KYC, procurement, sanctions, or eligibility verdict.' This gives an agent a solid sense of when to invoke it, even though it does not explicitly contrast it with the evidence-gateway sibling.

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