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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds registry-specific context (Danish ejerregister data) and the cross-tool handoff via 'enh', but says nothing about behavior for an unknown CVR or whether results may be empty.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first front-loads what is returned, the second gives the actionable cross-tool key hint. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 an output schema present the description need not explain return values, and the single required parameter is fully documented. The only gap is the absence of any note on empty/not-found results for a company with no registered people.

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 single 'cvr' parameter is documented as an 8-digit CVR number. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 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?

The description names the exact resource — owners (ejerregister), board, management, founders and auditors of a Danish company — so the agent knows precisely what record set comes back. It does not explicitly contrast with get_company or person_companies as alternatives, but the enumerated role list is specific enough to separate it from a general company lookup.

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 implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool for people attached to a company, and the note that 'enh' is accepted by person_companies is a useful chaining hint. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or statement of what to call instead for a person-first lookup.

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