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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, it discloses the cost model (2 credits: base lookup plus this section), the tier_restricted refusal behavior (refused at no cost, names the unlocking plan), and the temporal scoping of roles (listed only while the role lasts). This is context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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 the resource and zero filler sentences, but the opening sentence is a dense run-on enumerating roles and fields that would read better split. Information remains valuable throughout, so only structural polish is lost.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so: name, title examples (ADM. DIR., FORMAND), fraDato, enhedsNummer that get_person takes, and founder fields. Cost, prerequisites, and failure modes are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and there is a single required `cvr` param with pattern and description already documented. The description adds only that lookup is by CVR number and points to search_companies for name-based lookup, which is baseline-level added meaning.

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 precise verb+resource: directors, board members, founders and auditors of one Danish company as registered with CVR, plus liquidators and association representatives. It even carves out the boundary with get_financials (which names the signing auditor), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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 routing guidance: use search_companies first when you only have a name, and use one get_company call with `sections` when the profile or multiple sections are needed, since that is cheaper and faster. It also says what to do when refused due to plan restriction — tell the user rather than reporting data as absent.

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