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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It details periodization, source excerpts, preservation of reported names/org numbers, and null behavior for identifierat_orgnr. It also clarifies the historical nature, key behavioral context. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but for a read tool this is sufficient.

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 efficiently structured, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence. The additional sentences add essential behavioral clarifications, though the final sentence about identifierat_orgnr could be considered output detail, but it's not excessive.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description explains data provenance, periodization, historical nature, and null handling, giving an agent enough to understand what the tool returns. It lacks explicit output format details, but given low complexity and complete parameter schema, this is adequate.

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% and the parameter is simply 'orgnr' with format guidance. The description does not add further semantics to the input parameter; it only mentions an output-related field (identifierat_orgnr) without expanding the input meaning.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving parent and subsidiary companies reported in annual reports, with periodization and source excerpts. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying the resource (group relationships) and the historical nature, which is unique among the sibling tools.

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?

It provides clear context: the data is historical report data, and explicitly states it is not a statement about today's ownership, which guides when not to use it. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-to-use instructions against siblings.

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