Get Company Roles

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description discloses that roles are live from BRREG, the official enterprise register, and that output includes role type and appointment/resignation dates. This adds useful context about data freshness and return content, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 four tight sentences: purpose, historic flag guidance, when-to-use trigger, and live BRREG data source. Each sentence delivers distinct value, and the critical information is front-loaded.

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 an output schema present and simple parameters, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage trigger, data source, and return contents. It is sufficient for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, even among many sibling tools.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds a usage tip for include_historic but mostly restates what the schema says. Given the high schema coverage, a score 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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and enumerates the exact role types (board members, daglig leder, signature holders, prokura, revisor) for a Norwegian company. It also gives example user queries, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_company or get_person_roles.

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 includes an explicit trigger: "Use when the user asks 'who runs X AS?' or 'who is on the board?'" This clearly tells the agent when to invoke this tool. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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