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

Annotations already cover read-only/open-world safety, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: a hard cap of 100 company relations and the availability caveat 'Not in every plan.' It does not describe ordering, truncation signalling when the cap is hit, or whether a missing person returns an error versus an empty result.

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?

Front-loads the identifier type and source before the payload, then adds the cap and plan caveat in short clauses. Slightly dense — the LEGAL EJER / ejerandel sentence interrupts the core contract — but no wasted sentences.

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?

Covers input semantics, expected return content (roles across ownership, management and board) and result limits, which is enough for a single-parameter read with no output schema. The remaining gap is what happens at the 100-relation cap and whether relations can be filtered or paged.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by stressing 'never a CPR number' and 'CVR's number for the person', which is the most likely source of a wrong call. It largely restates the schema's search_persons provenance, keeping it below a 5.

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 verb and resource ('Get one person by unit number') plus the payload ('along with the companies they own, direct or sit on the board of'), which distinguishes it from search_persons (upstream lookup) and get_management (company-centric). The LEGAL EJER / ejerandel note pins down what a 'role' record actually contains.

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?

Explicitly routes ID acquisition to search_persons and states the use case ('map a person's business network'). It does not explicitly say when to prefer a sibling like get_ownership or get_real_owners instead, so the alternatives are only implied by the company-role framing.

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