Get Person's Companies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds the Norwegian scope and shareholding semantics, but no additional behavioral traits such as pagination or output details. The include_historic limitation is documented in the schema, not the description. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two concise sentences with no waste. The verb-action is front-loaded, followed by usage trigger and key provenance. 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?

Given the output schema, full parameter documentation, and annotations, the description provides complete context for tool selection and invocation. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how to obtain the required key. No critical gaps remain.

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 a baseline of 3 is warranted. The description adds value by explaining the person_key is obtained from search_persons, which is practical guidance beyond the schema's format description. The include_historic parameter is fully described in the schema with its future-reserved status, so no further compensation needed.

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 'List all Norwegian companies where the given person holds shares' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_person_roles or get_company_ownership by focusing on shareholdings.

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 says 'Use when the user asks "what does Person A own?"' and instructs to pass the owner_person_key from search_persons. This gives clear usage context, though it does not name alternative tools for exclusion, which would have made it a 5.

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