Get Company Risk Score

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the one-time disclaimer requirement, the exact error_code values that trigger the confirmation flow, the per-OAuth-user permanence, and that confirmation is audit-logged. It also notes the blocked_enk error for sole proprietorships, adding valuable behavioral context.

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 organized with a clear opening, bolded scope line, and a dedicated instructions paragraph. While longer than minimal, every sentence conveys operational detail (auth flow, error handling, alternative tools) without unnecessary filler.

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?

Descriptions includes the output components (score, level, breakdown), error behavior, authentication prerequisite, and cross-references to related tools. With an output schema already present, the description fully covers operational and contextual needs for an agent to select and invoke this tool.

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% for the single 'orgnr' parameter, so the baseline applies. The description mentions 'Norwegian company' and sole-proprietorship limitations but does not add substantive details about the orgnr format beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a Norwegian company's financial health. It explicitly differentiates from personal credit checks and points to firmaradar_get_aml_score for KYC pre-screening, 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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool (company financial health) vs. alternatives (AML score for PEP/sanctions). It also gives precise instructions for handling 403 errors by prompting user confirmation and calling the disclaimer-confirmation tool only after explicit user instruction.

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