Search Norwegian companies

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.