Get Company IP Rights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so no safety concerns. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: data source (Patentstyret), the ordering of the rights list (newest-first), the included fields (registration number, date, status, expiry date, title, link). It also clarifies that 'expiry date where applicable' indicates conditional fields, which goes beyond the schema.

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 fairly long, it is efficiently structured into meaningful sentences. It front-loads the core content (portfolio composition and source), then provides usage guidance and ordering details. No sentence is redundant; each adds value to the user's understanding of the tool.

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?

With one parameter, a full output schema, and helpful annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what data is returned, the source, the ordering, and the required lookup workflow. It doesn't describe error conditions or pagination, but for a simple read-only lookup this is not necessary. The output schema presumably supplies the rest, making the description complete for this complexity level.

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 schema alone covers 100% of the parameter (orgnr) with a clear description ('exactly 9 digits'). The description adds a minor workflow tip about using search_companies to obtain the orgnr, but doesn't provide additional format or syntax details. Thus the parameter semantics are adequately handled by the schema, with a slight enhancement from the description.

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 returns an intellectual-property portfolio (patents, trademarks, designs) for a Norwegian company, sourced from Patentstyret, with totals, active counts, and a list of rights. It distinguishes from siblings like get_company_financials or get_company by explicitly targeting IP matters. The verb 'get' and resource are specific, and the usage statement 'Use this for ANY question about a company's patents, trademarks, designs or IP rights' reinforces its dedicated role.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use this for ANY question about a company's patents, trademarks, designs or IP rights — Firmaradar covers this.' It also advises looking up orgnr via search_companies if only a name is available, which is a clear prerequisite. It doesn't name alternative tools for non-IP queries, but the positive guidance is strong enough to distinguish it from siblings.

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