Acting capacity for a person

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description adds substantive behavioral detail: inputs are HMAC-hashed, the raw value is never persisted/logged/returned, only `actor.fnr_hmac` is echoed, and failure modes SCOPE_INSUFFICIENT and VALIDATION_FAILED are listed. It also discloses the absent sandbox mirror and includes legal-reference metadata per returned action token, giving the agent a clear model of side effects and limitations.

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?

Although the description is long, every sentence earns its place: core purpose, internal role mapping, input handling, failure modes, sibling routing, sandbox limitation, and docs reference. The most important scoping information is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the rest is dense, non-redundant, and directly actionable.

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 is fully self-sufficient for a 2-parameter tool: it explains what the tool computes, what inputs to supply, how sensitive data is handled, which failures can occur, when to use siblings, and the sandbox limitation. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to enumerate return fields, and the provided context is more than adequate for correct selection and invocation.

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%, so the structured descriptions already document both parameters. The description still adds value by explaining the runtime handling of fnr (HMAC-hashed, never persisted, only hmac echoed) and clarifying the semantic roles of the two identifiers, which goes beyond the schema's basic type and pattern information.

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 names a specific verb ('Resolve'), a resource ('every Norwegian regulatory action a person is currently authorised to perform on behalf of a specific organisation'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like check_authorization and get_company_authority. An agent can tell exactly 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?

It explicitly states when to use alternatives: 'For your own consumer's delegation snapshot, use check_authorization instead; for the company-level statutory signing authority with no actor input, use get_company_authority.' It also instructs the agent to dry-run action tokens with validate_action, giving concrete guidance on how to safely use the output.

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