get_company

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 real behavioral context beyond that: the automatic fallback to sub-unit (underenhet) lookup when the ID is a location, which an agent could not infer from the schema. It stops short of auth/rate-limit or result-shape detail, but the fallback disclosure is a meaningful addition.

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?

Purpose and identifier format are front-loaded, followed by the field list, fallback behavior, and alternative tool. The field enumeration is long but functional since it tells the agent what one call yields; nothing is wasted, though it is dense.

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 lookup with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: identifier format, an example, the alternative tool for name-only queries, and the sub-unit fallback. Return-value detail is not needed because an output schema exists.

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 single parameter is fully documented as '9-digit organisation number'. The description restates the same format and adds only an example value, so it adds marginal value over structured data. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a precise verb+resource ('Full record for one Norwegian company') and enumerates the returned fields (address, industry codes, employee count, VAT, bankruptcy status), making the scope unambiguous. It is clearly differentiable from sibling search_companies and get_company_financials.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use search_companies first if you only have a name', and notes the sub-unit fallback when the orgnr is a business location rather than a legal entity. Both the when-to-use and the alternative are named.

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