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

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description discloses pricing (2 credits), ordering behavior (usually newest first, with late/corrected filings possibly out of order), fiscal-year identification, auditor fields, report source links, and no-cost tier restriction handling. This is unusually rich operational context for selecting and interpreting the tool.

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 purpose and key fields, and the remaining sentences carry operational details that matter. It is long and dense, especially around auditor/revisor semantics, so it would benefit from tighter structure, but there is little pure 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return semantics, which it does thoroughly: time range, field set, ordering caveat, fiscal-year comparison key, auditor roles, report URLs, publication dates, and pricing/error behavior. An agent has enough information to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already documents the sole CVR parameter and its 8-digit pattern at 100% coverage. The description adds useful acquisition guidance by saying to use search_companies first when only a name is known, though it does not add format or validation details 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 names a specific resource (annual accounts for one Danish company) and enumerates the returned fields, including revenue, EBIT, EBITDA, profit, equity, balance sheet and key ratios. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing to get_company for multi-section requests and search_companies for name-only lookup.

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 lookup guidance: use the CVR number directly, and use search_companies first when only a name is available. It also tells the caller to prefer one get_company call with sections when multiple sections are needed, and explains how to handle tier_restricted refusals.

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