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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by listing the returned fields (navn, organisasjonsform, etc.) and providing an example, which is not present in the input schema. This clarifies what the agent can expect in the response.

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 is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a compact example. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 simple one-parameter read-only lookup, the description covers the purpose, parameter format, and sample output fields. Without an output schema, it lists key return fields, which is sufficient for agent invocation. A minor gap is lack of explicit mention of error cases or prerequisites, but these are not critical for such a straightforward 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?

The single parameter orgnr is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) with the same 9-digit format and example. The description's repetition adds no new syntactic details, though the Equinor ASA example gives a concrete real-world instance.

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 clearly states the tool returns the full record for one entity identified by a 9-digit org number, with a concrete example (Equinor ASA). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_entities or compare_entities.

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 the intended use case (lookup by org number) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as search_entities or get_sub_entity. There is no when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance beyond the narrow focus on a single org number.

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