get_company_financials

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses valuable behavior: only the latest filed year exists, a PDF link is included, coverage is not universal, and missing data returns a clear 'no accounts filed' result rather than an error. These are exactly the traits an agent needs to handle results and failures.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the field list, then constraints and edge cases. Dense but every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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?

Since an output schema exists, return-value explanation is not required, yet the description still summarizes the returned fields. Combined with annotations and the documented edge cases, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this tool correctly.

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 single orgnr parameter is documented as '9-digit organisation number'), so the schema carries the load. The description adds a concrete example value (orgnr='923609016'), which is mildly helpful but not substantive parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource: retrieves latest filed annual accounts for a Norwegian company from Regnskapsregisteret, with an enumerated field list (revenue, operating profit, net result, total assets, equity, debt split, period, currency). It is clearly distinguishable from the other get_company* siblings by focusing on financial statements and names the exact source registry.

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 states the triggering question ('what was X's revenue/profit') and the key constraint that only the most recent filed year is available, plus the edge case that sole proprietorships may not file. No sibling alternative is named explicitly (e.g. get_company for general info), so it falls short of full when/when-not routing, but the context is clear.

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