Get Person's Companies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context (Norwegian companies) and reinforces that it is a read operation. No contradictions, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose and scope, second provides usage context and prerequisite. No unnecessary words.

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 high-quality annotations and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and usage, but does not address error cases or return value format. Given no output schema, a bit more detail on expected output could improve completeness.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond schema; it only provides usage guidance linking person_key to search_persons output.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('Norwegian companies where person holds shares'), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like firmaradar_get_person_roles by focusing on ownership. The example usage 'what does Person A own?' further clarifies its unique purpose.

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 states when to use (when user asks about ownership) and provides the prerequisite step ('Pass the owner_person_key returned by search_persons'). However, it does not include when not to use or mention alternatives like firmaradar_get_person_roles.

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