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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: each entry includes active status, person name/birth year, and linked corporate org name/number for corporate roles. Provenance and licensing (Brønnøysundregistrene, NLOD 2.0) are also disclosed. It does not cover error/404 or pagination behavior, but that gap is minor for a simple lookup.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then output details, then use cases and source. Nothing is redundant or rambling, though the third sentence mixes use cases and licensing in a slightly dense way.

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 one clearly documented parameter, a full output schema, and rich safety annotations, the description covers the main selection and invocation context. It even names key returned fields and source licensing. Missing alternative-tool routing and edge-case behavior (e.g., unknown org number) are the only gaps.

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%; the sole parameter org_number is fully documented in the schema. The tool description adds use-case and output context, but no added meaning about the parameter itself, so the coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve statutory management roles for a Norwegian company,' with a concrete list of role codes. It is clear about what is returned but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as brreg.registry.entity or brreg.registry.sub_units.

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 use cases ('due diligence, UBO research, corporate governance checks') imply when the tool matters, and the org_number parameter indicates the entry point. However, it gives no direction about when to choose roles over sibling Brreg tools (entity, search, sub_units) or what those alternatives are for.

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