Get one Norwegian company

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.