Check Company in Difficulty (FIV)

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) already provide safety and idempotency info. Description adds that the classification is deterministic and not a raw registry flag, and explains criteria (NUES a-e) and return structure.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant or extraneous information.

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?

Given low complexity (1 param, no output schema), description covers purpose, usage, return details (which criteria, status, confidence score), and classification nature. Sufficient for agent to understand and use correctly.

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?

Only one parameter 'orgnr' with full schema coverage (100%). Description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema provides ('9-digit norwegian organization number').

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'assess', the resource 'Norwegian company under NUES criteria a-e', and distinguishes from a raw registry flag. It also implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like firmaradar_check_fiv_bulk by focusing on a single company.

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?

Explicitly mentions use cases: EU state-aid eligibility, credit assessment, supplier-risk screening. Does not exclude alternatives but provides clear context.

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