Add Company to Monitoring

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals side effects (user alerts on announcements/status/ownership changes), idempotency, 409 and 403 error conditions, and the IP-alert behavior depending on add-on. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Though lengthy, each sentence carries operational value: purpose, consequences, parameter guidance, errors, prerequisites, and trigger condition. It is front-loaded with the core action and structured logically, earning its length.

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 purpose, behavior, parameter semantics, error handling, prerequisites, and usage conditions. With an output schema present, return values need not be described. No critical gaps exist for this tool's complexity.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for orgmr and ip_alerts. The tool description mostly reiterates or paraphrases the schema text, adding no novel parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Add a Norwegian company (by 9-digit orgnr) to the user's company-monitoring list.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are mostly read/search operations, by describing a write action (adding to monitoring).

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Call only when the user has asked to monitor a specific company.' It also gives prerequisites (plan with Firmaovervakning) and error-handling guidance (409, 403 cap reached), leaving little ambiguity.

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