get_group_structure

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), but the description adds genuine behavioral context: the return is a nested ownership tree, and non-group companies yield 'a clear answer, not an error' — a useful disclosure about edge-case handling that the annotations do not convey. It adds less about rate limits, permissions, or depth limits.

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 purpose, then query phrasings, then edge case, then example — a sound information hierarchy with no filler. The three paraphrase questions are slightly redundant, which keeps it just shy of maximal conciseness.

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-value explanation is not required, yet the description still sketches the tree shape. With one fully documented param, annotations covering safety, edge-case behavior stated, and a concrete example, an agent has everything needed to call it 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% and already documents the single param as a 9-digit organisation number, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly further by supplying a concrete worked example (orgnr='923609016' for Equinor), which grounds the expected format and output for the agent.

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+scope: 'Registered group structure (konsern) for a Norwegian company by orgnr', with the exact return shape (nested parent/subsidiary tree with ownership stakes). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_company (single company) and search_companies (lookup) without opening either schema.

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 routes by user intent, listing the natural-language questions it answers ('what companies does X own', 'is X part of a group', 'who are X's subsidiaries'), which tells the agent when this tool is the right choice. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating explicit exclusions, so it is clear but not fully comparative.

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