search_companies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: the returned field set and the decoding of status flags (konkurs = bankrupt, underAvvikling = being dissolved), which the annotations do not convey.

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 return contract are front-loaded, then usage routing, then compact examples. Slightly verbose with three trailing examples, but every sentence carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, the field list is a bonus rather than a necessity, and routing plus filters plus examples are all covered. The only gap is pagination behavior ('page' is never described), which is minor given 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 56%, leaving page, limit, min_employees and max_employees undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by explaining limit in the return sentence and giving concrete value examples for naeringskode, kommunenummer and min_employees, though 'page' remains unexplained in both.

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 ('Search the Norwegian company register') plus an explicit enumeration of what is returned. It clearly distinguishes itself from get_company by naming the exact condition (no orgnr) that selects it.

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?

State 'Use when the user names a company without an orgnr or asks find companies that...' and the alternative 'If you already have an orgnr, call get_company instead' give an explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use with the routing sibling named.

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