Get Company Roles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the historic roles parameter behavior. No contradictions; additional context like data freshness or limits is not critical for this simple list operation.

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: first states core purpose, second gives a usage tip, third provides trigger phrases. No redundant information; every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema is provided, but the tool's purpose is straightforward (listing roles). The description gives enough context for normal use, though it does not detail the output structure. Given the simplicity and the presence of clear annotations, it is adequately complete.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description clarifies the include_historic flag with a more practical explanation ('people who previously held roles') and reinforces the role types. This adds moderate value beyond the schema.

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 uses specific verb 'list' and clearly identifies resources: board members, daglig leder, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools like firmaradar_get_company or firmaradar_get_company_ownership, which cover different aspects of a 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?

Provides example user queries ('who runs X AS?', 'who is on the board?') and explains when to use include_historic. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like firmaradar_get_person_roles, though the context implies the tool is for company-level roles.

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