Get Company Risk Signals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about the kinds of signals aggregated but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, response size, or authorization requirements. 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?

Two sentences: the first is a dense but informative list of signal categories, the second gives a clear usage directive. It is longer than minimal but every segment adds value; could be slightly more scannable but is not bloated.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description gives sufficient context for an agent to select the tool and know when to invoke it. It stops short of contrasting with closely related risk tools, but overall it is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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%, with both orgnr and since already described in the input schema. The description adds only that the tool works for 'one company' (matching orgnr) and does not enhance the meaning of the 'since' parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the tool as returning 'aggregated risk and growth signals for one company' and enumerates the specific signal categories (bankruptcy/distress, capital-loss, M&A, KYC, NAV, merger/demerger, Frivillighetsregister). This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_risk_score or check_foretak_i_vanskeligheter.

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?

Explicitly provides a usage context: 'Use as the second step after get_company to evaluate whether a company needs deeper due diligence.' However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool in favor of more specialized siblings like get_risk_score or check_foretak_i_vanskeligheter.

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