Check Company in Difficulty (FIV)

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context by noting the result is a deterministic classification rather than a raw registry flag, and mentions a data-completeness confidence score. This goes beyond structured data without contradicting 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, stating the purpose, output, and use cases in two sentences without redundancy or fluff.

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, read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, output, and use cases adequately. It lacks details on data sources or edge cases, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and annotations.

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 for the single parameter is 100%, and the description adds no supplementary parameter details. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool assesses Norwegian company qualification under NUES criteria a-e and returns a deterministic classification. It distinguishes from raw registry flags but does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 provides explicit use cases (EU state-aid eligibility, credit assessment, supplier-risk screening) but does not specify when not to use or mention alternative tools. This is clear context without exclusions.

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