Authorisation snapshot

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses that it always returns 200 (with status 'none' when no delegation, never 404), the failure modes SCOPE_INSUFFICIENT and VALIDATION_FAILED, the no-sandbox-mirror constraint, and the zero-upstream-cost comparison with validate_action. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and return fields; every subsequent sentence adds distinct value: usage guidance, HTTP behavior, failure modes, sibling routing, environment constraint, and a docs link. No filler or redundant commentary.

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?

Compleet for a one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema: covers return semantics, when to use alternatives, failure modes, environmental constraints (no sandbox mirror), and points to docs. The output schema can handle detailed return shapes, so the description doesn't need to reproduce them.

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% for org_number (pattern, examples, MOD-11), so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description mostly repeats '9 digits, MOD-11' and adds a failure-mode note, but does not significantly enrich parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Return'), resource ('authorisation snapshot'), and scope ('calling consumer's delegation on a Norwegian organisation'), and enumerates the exact fields returned. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_acting_capacity, check_fullmakt, and get_company_authority.

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?

Provides explicit routing guidance: for a specific person's actions use list_acting_capacity, for preflight use validate_action, for per-agent-principal breakdown use check_fullmakt, and for statutory signing authority use get_company_authority. It also clarifies the tool's constraint of no per-action or per-actor input at v1, so an agent knows when not to choose it.

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