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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results include historical ('was') connections and bankruptcy records of involved companies, which is real scope information beyond annotations. It does not describe result volume, ordering, or whether current/historical ties are distinguishable in the response.

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 compact sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical role list and bankruptcy clause each carry information. Minor density – the parenthetical could be dropped without much loss.

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 rich annotations, a fully documented single parameter, and an output schema covering return values, the description only needs to convey scope – which it does, including historical links and bankruptcies. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly; only result-shape nuances are left to the output schema.

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?

There is a single required parameter and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, including that the 'enh' ID comes from company_people. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier, so the baseline of 3 applies – the schema does the work.

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 states a specific resource and scope: all Danish companies a person is or was connected to, including ownership, board, and management roles, plus bankruptcies. The direction (person → companies) is clear and implicitly distinguishes it from company_people (company → people). It stops short of naming a sibling, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 by the scope statement – an agent can infer it should call this when it has a person ID and wants their company affiliations. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative for related lookups such as company_people or search_companies, so guidance remains implicit.

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