Search Announcements

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the broad cross-company scope and the use for monitoring, but does not disclose details like pagination behavior, response shape, or rate limits beyond what the schema and output schema imply.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by concrete use-case examples. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 9 parameters, existing annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, filters, and typical use cases. It does not mention pagination or how limit/cursor work, but those are partially evident from the schema and output schema, making it reasonably complete for a search 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 description coverage is 78%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds a high-level grouping of filter types (type, date range, NACE-code, location) but does not provide additional semantics for q, limit, or cursor, nor does it explain edge cases like the NACE prefix behavior (which the schema already covers).

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 the tool searches BRREG kunngjøringer across all Norwegian companies, with a specific verb ('Search') and resource scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like firmaradar_get_company_announcements by emphasizing 'all Norwegian companies' and the filter dimensions.

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 recommends this tool for trend analysis and radar-style monitoring with concrete examples ('all konkurser in restaurant sector last quarter'). However, it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools for single-company announcement lookups, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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