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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one valuable behavioral fact – the Pro-plan requirement – but says nothing about what happens for companies with no filed annual reports, how many years are returned, or the response shape. Adequate but thin for a zero-annotation tool.

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: verb + resource + enumerated return fields, then the prerequisite clause. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what data you get) comes first.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description is nearly self-sufficient: it enumerates the returned metrics in lieu of an output schema and flags the Pro-plan gate. The only real gap is behavior on missing/absent annual-report data.

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% (the single cvr parameter documents the 8-digit format and gives an example), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.

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 (hent) and resource (strukturerede regnskabstal) and enumerates exactly which figures are returned (omsætning, bruttofortjeneste, resultat, egenkapital, balance per regnskabsår). An agent can see this is the financial-statements tool rather than lookup_company or search_companies, though it never names those siblings or draws the boundary 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 only implied – you call it when you need official financial figures – with no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives for companies lacking annual reports. The one piece of guidance present is the entitlement prerequisite 'Kræver Pro-plan', which is useful but not a routing rule.

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