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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-annotated behavior: auto-sync from CVR when no local data exists, a default 5-year window, and which include sections are 'live' (raw_xbrl, documents). It omits only return shape and error handling.

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?

Three compact sentences with the core purpose and default scope front-loaded, followed by the optional extension mechanism. Dense and largely waste-free, though the include list partially duplicates the schema enum.

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?

For a read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, defaults, auto-sync behavior, and optional sections. It stops short of describing the returned metrics or growth-trend format, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the include enum. The description mostly restates the include values and the 5-year default rather than adding syntax or edge-case guidance, keeping it at the baseline.

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?

Starts with a specific verb ('Henter') and resource ('beregnede nøgletal + væksttrend for en virksomhed'), which clearly distinguishes it from data-retrieval siblings like cvr_get_company or cvr_risk_profile. However, it never explicitly names a sibling or states what it is not, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 explains how to extend results ('Brug include[] for ekstra') and notes auto-sync behavior when local data is absent, which implies usage context. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives and no guidance on when the extra sections are warranted beyond listing them.

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