get_company_roles

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint); the description adds useful context beyond that: data source (Enhetsregisteret), that role holders can be persons or companies, and that resignation flags are returned. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but for a small scoped lookup that is minor.

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 returned fields, then use-cases, then source, then an example — all sentences earn their place. Dense but not padded; slightly long for the simplicity of a two-parameter lookup.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be documented, yet the description still names the roles returned. Combined with annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters including the birth-date default. The description contributes only the example orgnr value and the Norwegian-company context, which is marginal beyond the schema's '9-digit organisation number'.

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 ('get_company_roles') with the exact scope enumerated: chair, board members, CEO, auditor, with names and resignation flags. It is clearly separable from siblings like get_company (registry data), get_company_financials, and get_group_structure.

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 maps user questions to the tool ('who is on the board of X', 'who runs X', 'who audits X'), giving clear context for when it applies. It does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling like get_company or get_group_structure instead, so no exclusion guidance.

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