Company compliance summary

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it composes multiple data categories in one round-trip from one rule version, obligations[] is byte-identical to get_company_obligations, deadlines[] matches get_company_deadlines, and failure modes are enumerated (NOT_FOUND, SCOPE_INSUFFICIENT, UPSTREAM_TIMEOUT, VALIDATION_FAILED). It also discloses sandbox authentication behavior and per-call cost, which are not available in structured fields. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: core purpose, usage routing, output composition, sibling relationships, failure modes, and sandbox/pricing/docs details. It is longer than minimal, but the tool is complex and the detail is high-value. The most important information is front-loaded in the first two sentences.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and read-only/idempotent annotations, this description is complete. It covers purpose, when to use it, what it returns, how it relates to siblings, failure modes, auth/sandbox behavior, cost, and documentation. The agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result. No significant gap remains.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already has a rich description with pattern, example, and MOD-11 validation semantics. The description adds only that the param is a Norwegian organisasjonsnummer and that it is the sole exposed field, which is useful context but not substantial additional parameter meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve a one-shot compliance summary for a Norwegian organisation by its 9-digit organisasjonsnummer.' It immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it is the 'FIRST call when orienting against a company' and explicitly compares its output to get_company_obligations and get_company_deadlines. An agent can clearly tell what this tool does and how it differs from related tools.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable: it names the tool as the first call, says to use get_company_deadlines when horizon control is needed, get_company_obligations for drill-down, and get_company_context for identity without a verdict. It also states what the tool does not expose ('Only { org_number } is exposed'). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

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