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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: the 2-credit cost model, what happens when the plan does not include the section (refused at no cost with tier_restricted), and the exact nature of the returned risk score and its supporting flags.

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 the core purpose, then proceeds through scope, lookup method, cost, cheaper alternative, and error handling. Every sentence adds a distinct operational fact with no filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the rich annotations, and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what is returned, who is scored, cost, failure mode, and when to prefer a sibling tool.

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 in the schema. The description adds only marginal meaning by implying the lookup key and pointing to search_companies as a way to obtain a CVR, which is more usage guidance than parameter semantics.

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 verb (Get) and resource (SI-score risk rating for one Danish company), clarifies it is an algorithmic score not a credit rating, and specifies the population (limited companies and foundations). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming search_companies and get_company as alternatives.

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 when-to-use guidance: use search_companies first when only a name is known, and use get_company with sections when the user needs multiple sections. It also explains the tier_restricted refusal and how to report it to the user, which is actionable routing guidance.

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