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

Beyond the read-only annotations, it discloses credit cost, truncation behavior for long histories, and no-cost refusal behavior for plans lacking the section. These are important operational details an agent would not know from annotations alone.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then proceeds to ordering, truncation, lookup prerequisite, cost, alternative, and error behavior. It is dense but every sentence provides actionable information for calling the tool correctly.

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, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the important behavioral context: ordering, truncation, cost, alternative tools, and tier-restricted refusal. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool appropriately.

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%, so the single `cvr` parameter is already fully documented by the schema. The description adds that lookup is by CVR and that search_companies should be used first when only a name is known, but it does not add format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 its contents: capital events for one Danish company, including formation, increases, reductions, subscription rate, and implied valuation. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as get_company_history or get_financials.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: use search_companies first when only a name is available, and use get_company with `sections` instead when multiple sections or the company profile are needed. It also explains the tier restriction case and what to tell the user.

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