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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely new context: results are raw data without a biased assessment, and the single-company KYC score is deactivated because credit-information activity requires a permit. It does not describe pagination or latency, keeping it below 5.

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-loads the purpose and section list in one dense sentence, then appends a clearly marked 'Bemærk:' caveat. No filler, though the single very long sentence is slightly heavy.

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-value burden and does so by naming the six sections and the raw-data framing. It omits any detail on result shape per section or ordering, so it is complete enough to call but not fully specified.

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 both parameters (cvr_numre, include) are already documented in the schema, including the enum note that network_scan belonged to the disabled 1-CVR profile. The description reinforces the 2–5 constraint and the KYC deactivation but adds no syntax beyond the schema, making 3 the correct 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?

States a specific resource (arbejdsretslig identitet) and scope (2–5 CVR i 6 sektioner), enumerating the six sections so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like cvr_ownership_network or cvr_screen_companies, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Implies usage via the 2–5 CVR range and the note that the single-company KYC/stability profile is disabled, which hints the agent should not reach here for one-CVR scoring. However it names no alternative tool and gives no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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