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

Annotations already declare it a safe, idempotent read (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are returned in sections (best companies, persons with active roles, other matches) and each entity type yields a different identifier. With no output schema, this return-shape disclosure is the main value-add.

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, no padding, and the search scope is front-loaded before the return-behavior sentence. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 does the heavy lifting by describing the sectioned result structure and the identifiers returned, which is what an agent needs to chain into cvr_get_company. It stops short of describing result counts per section or the behavior of status/antal filters on the returned list, leaving a small gap for a 5-parameter resolver.

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 type, antal, query, status, and antal_ovrige including defaults and ranges. The description only restates that the query accepts a company name, person name, or 8-digit CVR number, adding no syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 scope: broad fuzzy search over company name, person name, or CVR number, which clearly separates it from exact-lookup siblings like cvr_get_company. The title ('Identificér virksomhed eller person') reinforces the intent. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of the top band.

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?

The word 'fuzzy' implies this is the entry-point resolver used before exact lookups, and its multi-entity scope implies when it beats company-only siblings. However, no sentence states when to prefer it over cvr_get_company or cvr_screen_companies, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given. Usage is only inferable.

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