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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, it discloses a non-obvious credit model (1 base + 1 per section vs 2 for section tools), added latency, plan gating with graceful degradation ('sections the plan does not cover are skipped... listed under warnings'), and a contractual restriction on realOwners that a paid plan alone does not unlock. It also characterizes creditRisk as an algorithmic SI-score rather than a credit rating and flags courtData as large.

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-loaded with purpose, then cost trade-off, then per-section bullets, so an agent can stop reading early. It is long, but nearly every bullet carries decision-relevant information; a slight trim of the repeated cost mentions would tighten it further.

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 no output schema, the description still explains what the base response returns, what each optional section yields, and how partial results surface via warnings. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to report withheld data to the user.

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 already 100%, but the description adds real meaning to each enum value that the schema only names: financials covers up to four years with report links, ownership uses banded percentages, realOwners is UBO/confidential, creditRisk is an SI-score 0-10 with flags, courtData spans 8 authorities plus Statstidende. This is substantive value above the enum list.

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 full details for one Danish company by CVR number') and immediately enumerates what the base response contains (name, status, address, industry, employees, capital, purpose, history). It explicitly separates itself from the single-section siblings (get_financials, get_management, get_ownership), so an agent can choose without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a concrete decision rule backed by cost: 'Take it when the user wants the profile with one or more sections... while each section tool costs 2 on its own' and the inverse exclusion 'For one section alone, its section tool returns the same data in a smaller answer.' It also warns to request extra sections only when needed and to request courtData only for legal/regulatory history.

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