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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return content (identity fields: CVR number, name, status, city, industry) and that the search covers the whole registry unfiltered. It is silent on result limits, pagination, ranking/ordering, and no-match behavior, which for a search tool is a meaningful omission.

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?

Two compact sentences, scope stated first, return fields and the alternative-tool pointer second. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates the returned identity fields, and with an unambiguous read-only search intent and fully covered parameters little is left unknown. Describing the limit/pagination behavior would close the remaining gap.

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 both query (1-200 chars) and limit (max 50, default 10) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that matching is by name, adding negligible meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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 and resource ("Søg i hele CVR-registret på virksomhedsnavn") plus the exact scope (entire registry) and return shape. It also names the sibling it is not (lookup_company), so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use lookup_company when the full record is needed, implying this tool is for name-based discovery and summary fields. It does not state the reverse case (e.g. when the CVR number is already known), so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive on exclusions.

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