Get Company Ownership

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the data comes from Skatteetaten's Aksjeeierbok, reflects the latest filed holdings, and the result contains ownership edges, percentages, and identifiers. It goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Four sentences, all purposeful and front-loaded: the first states the core function, the second gives usage, the third names the source, and the fourth describes the result shape. No fluff or redundant restatement of schema fields.

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 the tool's complexity (5 params, output schema present), the description covers purpose, usage, data provenance, and result content. Annotations handle safety semantics. Nothing critical is missing for an ownership-tree lookup tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not introduce any parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only restates the direction concept. It does not add syntax, format, or additional constraints.

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 opens with 'Get the ownership tree for a Norwegian company' and immediately disambiguates direction: who they own (down), who owns them (up/UBO), or both. It also includes concrete use cases ('who owns X AS?') and names the data source, clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is given: 'Use when the user asks "who owns X AS?" or to map a corporate group.' This clearly states when to use the tool, but it stops short of naming alternative tools or stating when not to use it, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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