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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: result location ('Results under _embedded.enheter') and field mapping (navn=name, organisasjonsform=org form). It does not contradict annotations. The mention of parameters not present in the schema (naeringskode, forretningsadresse) slightly muddies behavioral transparency, but the core disclosures are solid.

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 a single, information-dense sentence with two inline examples. It front-loads the core purpose and then lists field mappings. While it packs a lot into one sentence, it remains readable and avoids fluff. The extra parameters (naeringskode, forretningsadresse) add noise but overall conciseness is strong.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the search scope, result location, and field semantics, which is substantial. It could mention pagination behavior or clarify that only the parameters in the schema are accepted. Given the annotations cover safety, this is fairly complete but not perfect.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by translating Norwegian field names (navn, organisasjonsform, kommunenummer) and providing examples. However, it also references naeringskode and forretningsadresse, which are not in the input schema, potentially misleading the agent about valid parameters. This detracts from clarity.

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's function: 'Search Norwegian companies/organisations (Enhetsregisteret) by name + filters.' It identifies a specific resource (Enhetsregisteret) and verb (search), with concrete examples. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_entity (look-up) and search_sub_entities (search within sub-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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when searching by name or filters. It provides example queries and filter combinations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_entity for exact ID lookups. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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