Get company roles

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.