Get Company Risk Score

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds substantial behavioral context: the output structure (score 0-100, named level, components), the error for sole-proprietorships (blocked_enk), the prerequisite disclaimer confirmation with error handling (HTTP 403 and error_code), and the permanence of the confirmation. 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?

The description is well-organized with clear sections (SCOPE, personal tax-record integration) and front-loaded key information. While informative, it could be slightly more concise; however, every sentence serves a purpose.

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 moderate complexity (risk score, error handling, preconditions, integration with sibling tools), the description covers all essential aspects: output structure, scope limitations, error cases, prerequisite disclaimer process, and relationship to AML tool. No output schema exists but description sufficiently explains return value.

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?

Only one parameter 'orgnr' with 100% schema coverage. The description does not add new syntax but links the parameter to the error scenario (sole-proprietorships return blocked_enk). This provides extra meaning about expected input behavior beyond the schema description.

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 provides a structured risk score (0-100) with named levels and component breakdown for Norwegian companies. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like firmaradar_get_aml_score (PEP/sanctions) and notes it returns an error for sole-proprietorships (ENK).

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 when to use (company financial health assessment) and what it is NOT (personal credit check). It provides clear guidance to combine with firmaradar_get_aml_score for full KYC, and details required pre-screening disclaimer confirmation, including error codes and recovery actions.

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