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

Annotations cover only safety (readOnly, non-destructive), but the description adds what they cannot: a cost of 2 credits, the base-lookup-plus-section pricing model, and the exact failure mode when the plan lacks the section (refused at no cost with a tier_restricted code). It even tells the agent how to phrase that refusal so absence isn't misreported as missing data.

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?

Dense but nearly waste-free: volume warning, lookup key, cost, alternative, and error handling each occupy one clause. It is somewhat run-on, and the 'Large; call it only when...' warning sits behind the data-source enumeration rather than being front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema, this covers everything an agent needs: what is returned, how expensive it is, when to substitute get_company, and how to interpret a tier_restricted refusal. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 fully documented with its 8-digit pattern, so the schema carries the syntax. The description adds the acquisition path ('use search_companies first when you only have a name'), which is meaning beyond the schema rather than a restatement.

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 resource with unusual precision: civil court cases plus decisions, orders, recalls and notices from 8 Danish authorities and the Statstidende gazette, scoped to one company and matched under earlier names. An agent can distinguish this from get_company_history or list_bankruptcies purely from the text.

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?

Explicit exclusions ('call it only when the user asks about legal or regulatory history'), an explicit prerequisite ('use search_companies first when you only have a name'), and a named cheaper alternative (get_company with `sections` when more than one section is needed). All three routing decisions an agent faces are answered.

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