Get Company Announcements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context about untrusted_content wrapping to prevent prompt injection from BRREG-sourced text, which is not captured in annotations and is crucial for handling external data. No contradiction with 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and examples, followed by a necessary security detail. No wasted words, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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 tool has a single simple parameter, an output schema (so return values are covered), and annotations covering safety. The description sufficiently covers purpose, scope, and the critical untrusted-content handling, making it complete for an agent to invoke 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?

With only one parameter (orgnr) and 100% schema description coverage (stating '9-digit orgnr'), the schema fully explains the parameter. The tool description does not add param-specific details, but given the high 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 lists BRREG official announcements for a Norwegian company, with concrete examples (bankruptcy, mergers, demergers, ownership changes, address changes). This specifies the verb ('List'), the resource ('BRREG kunngjøringer'), and the scope (for a company), distinguishing it from sibling tools like firmaradar_search_announcements.

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 clearly implies usage: when you have a Norwegian orgnr and need official announcements for that specific company. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear and the sibling named firmaradar_search_announcements suggests a search-oriented alternative.

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