lookup_company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It conveys only that this is a read ('Get') and that a broad set of fields is returned ('comprehensive information'), without saying what is included, whether optional data such as financials is opt-in, or what happens on an unknown/invalid orgnr.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terse wording leaves little room for the routing and content hints an agent would benefit from.

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 4-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description ought to sketch what 'comprehensive information' covers (registry data, address, board, status) so the agent knows what it gets back. The schema fully documents inputs, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 description coverage is 100% and every parameter has a clear description with format examples and enum values, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing beyond 'by organization number', which the schema already states, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (get information about a Swedish company) and the identifier type (organization number), which distinguishes it from search_companies by name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_company_timeline or get_compliance_data, which also return company-level data.

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 phrase 'by organization number' implies the caller must already have an orgnr, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of search_companies or the other company siblings. No mention of when the optional include_financials/include_fi flags should be set versus calling the dedicated financial tools.

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