Get Group Support (Konsernstøtte)

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, etc. The description adds critical behavioral info: SkatteFUNN never reports amounts, so agents should use 'antall_prosjekter' as the primary activity KPI. No contradictions 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?

The description is slightly long but well-structured: it begins with the main output, then provides a critical NOTE. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 no output schema, the description partially explains the return fields (selskap_stotte and konsern_aggregat) and addresses the SkatteFUNN limitation. For a single-parameter tool, it is fairly complete, though more details on the return format would help.

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 describes 'orgnr' as a 9-digit Norwegian org number. The description adds context that it is 'typically konsern-toppen', which provides additional guidance 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?

The description clearly states it returns a tree-structured overview of public grants for a Norwegian company and its konsern, naming specific sources and output fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like firmaradar_get_company or firmaradar_get_risk_score.

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 explicitly lists use cases: due-diligence, state-aid compliance checks, or competitive intelligence. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context makes it clear that this tool is for group-level grant data.

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