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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that data comes from official Brreg and PRH registries and that new-registration monitoring is supported, but it does not explain output shape, rate limits, or how monitoring differs from lookup. With annotations carrying the core behavioral burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description repeats the same sentence with an ellipsis and truncation, wasting space and creating ambiguity. It is short, but the duplication and incomplete second sentence undermine structure and front-loading.

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?

There is no output schema and the input schema is a nested object with only a link, so the description should do more to explain query fields, monitoring behavior, and expected results. It names the data sources and broad capability but leaves key operational details missing for a registry lookup tool.

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%, but the single nested input parameter is documented only by a generic link. The description adds meaningful semantics by saying the lookup accepts org number or name and supports monitoring, which helps compensate for the opaque schema. Baseline 3 is correct given full nominal coverage but minimal schema detail.

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?

The description states a specific verb (look up) and resource (official Norwegian and Finnish company registry data) and names both source countries, Brreg and PRH. It also mentions query by org number or name and new-registration monitoring, which distinguishes it from generic company-enrichment siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with tools like company_due_diligence.

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 description implies usage by mentioning org number, name, and monitoring, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent must infer whether this is for compliance lookup, lead enrichment, or tender matching without any routing signal.

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