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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: traversal is capped at depth 4, ownership chains include indirect and sister/holding relations, and person results are ranked by company value. No auth, rate-limit, or freshness caveats are given, keeping it at a strong 4.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core concept before mode-specific detail, with effectively no filler. The second sentence compresses a lot of clauses, which slightly hurts scanability, but nothing is redundant.

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 burden of signalling what comes back, and it does list the main result categories (owners, følgende, søstre, holding-klassifikation; influence, shares, roles). Annotations cover the safety profile and params are fully documented. Minor gaps remain around ordering/return shape and behavior when only some parameters are supplied.

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 all four parameters (dybde, cvr_nummer, kun_aktive, enhedsnummer) are already documented at field level. The description restates that cvr_nummer drives company mode and enhedsnummer drives person mode, and references the depth-4 ceiling, but adds little syntax or format detail the schema lacks.

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?

Names a specific resource and operation (op- og nedstrøms ejerskabsanalyse) and splits it cleanly into two analyzable domains: company ownership (direct/indirect owners, holdings, sisters) and person portfolio (roles, shares, influence). An agent can distinguish this graph-traversal tool from siblings like cvr_risk_profile or cvr_financial_analysis without opening the 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 clear routing guidance for the two usage modes: pass cvr_nummer for company analysis, enhedsnummer for person analysis. It states context but no exclusions or named alternative tools for overlapping cases (e.g. when to prefer cvr_get_company instead), so it stops short of a 5.

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