Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_rolesA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds the context that data comes from the public register, which is useful, but it does not disclose what happens for invalid org numbers, whether the result is a list or object, or any access requirements. It is a read operation implied by 'registered', but not explicit.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single concise sentence, front-loading the core purpose with useful context ('public register'). There is no wasted content.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple single-parameter getter, the description provides adequate context about the data source and content. However, without an output schema, it does not explain the return structure or potential error conditions, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema already fully documents the single parameter 'orgnr' with a description and pattern. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states that the tool returns registered roles for a company (board members, chair, general manager, etc.), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_company (which presumably returns company-level data) and search_companies (search).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies use when needing role information from the public register, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus siblings or when not to use it. There are no exclusion conditions or alternative tool references.

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

• search_companiesA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description notes that it returns companies 'where the register has them,' which is a helpful caveat about data completeness. However, it does not disclose whether the search is read-only (though that's implied), any rate limits, or how results are ordered/paginated. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it provides only limited behavioral detail beyond the basic return value.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences, front-loading the core action in the first sentence and the return value in the second. No redundant or filler content.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The description covers the essential purpose and return fields, but for a tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, it could specify more about result behavior (e.g., default limit, accessibility of search). However, the schema supplies parameter constraints, so the description is adequate for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema descriptions cover all parameters with examples and constraints (e.g., limit maximum, comma-separation for organisationForm and municipalityNumber). The tool description only repeats the search criteria from the schema (name, industry code, municipality, legal form) without adding new semantic meaning, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enrich parameter understanding.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool searches Enhetsregisteret by name, industry code, municipality, or legal form, and returns registered companies with address, industry, and contact details. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_company, which implies a direct lookup, and list_recent_registrations, which focuses on new entries.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage when searching for companies by these criteria, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_company or list_recent_registrations, nor does it mention exclusion criteria. For example, it doesn't say 'use get_company for exact organization numbers' or 'use list_recent_registrations for newly registered companies.' Thus, usage guidance is present but implicit.

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

• get_companyA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only retrieval by stating 'Full register record' but does not disclose error behavior, authorization requirements, or rate limits. It is not contradictory, but the transparency is minimal.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of eight words. Every word earns its place: 'Full register record' sets expectations for the return payload, and 'single Norwegian organisation number' uniquely identifies the input.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  With one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys that the tool returns the complete registered company data for a given org number. It could expand on the record's structure, but the low complexity and explicit 'full record' wording make it largely sufficient.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema already fully describes the only parameter (orgnr) with a pattern and description. The description repeats the phrase 'Norwegian organisation number' but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description 'Full register record for a single Norwegian organisation number' clearly states the verb (get/return), resource (company record), and scope (single Norwegian organisation number). It distinguishes from siblings like search_companies and list_recent_registrations, which serve different lookup flows.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description indicates this tool is for retrieving one company by a known Norwegian organisation number, which provides clear context on when to use it. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the 'single ... organisation number' prerequisite effectively guides the agent away from search or list tools.

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

• list_recent_registrationsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that results are within a date window and can be filtered, but does not mention read-only nature, default behaviors, pagination, or ordering. For a listing tool, basic safety is implied but not explicit.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. No wasted words. Every phrase contributes meaning.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no output schema and six optional parameters, the description gives adequate context for a listing tool. It explains the core purpose and filters, but doesn't mention defaults or return structure. However, schema covers parameter defaults, so the description is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. Description adds context by tying 'recent date window' to date parameters and 'municipality and legal form' to filters, but does not add meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Title 'List newly registered companies' and description 'Companies entered into the register within a recent date window' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (company registrations). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on recent registration dates rather than general search or specific company details.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Description provides clear context: 'Useful for tracking new business activity in an area.' This implies when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when not to use vs search_companies).

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