Get Group Support (Konsernstøtte)

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it clarifies the tree structure, names the returned fields, and warns that SkatteFUNN never reports amounts, suggesting antall_prosjekter as the primary KPI and noting that total_belop_nok excludes SkatteFUNN by design. This materially helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the overview, the SkatteFUNN caveat, and the use cases. No redundant or filler content.

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?

The description explains the return structure (selskap_stotte and konsern_aggregat), covers the critical source-data caveat, and states intended use cases. Combined with the existing output schema and annotations, the agent has enough context to use the tool effectively without additional documentation.

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% and the parameter description already specifies '9-digit norwegian organization number (typically konsern-toppen).' The description adds 'and its konsern' but does not provide additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema. With such high schema coverage, the baseline 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 starts with 'Tree-structured overview of public grants' and lists specific sources (Innovasjon Norge, SkatteFUNN, BRREG støtteregister, Prosjektbanken), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that cover company signals, financials, or ownership. It also specifies the scope ('for a Norwegian company and its konsern') and the two return fields, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states use cases: 'Use for due-diligence, state-aid compliance checks, or competitive intelligence.' It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool. The SkatteFUNN note also provides interpretive guidance, shifting the score toward the higher end.

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