lookup_company

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'look up' implies a read-only operation, and 'sourced live from the official Danish business registry' addus useful provenance and freshness context. However, it does not explicitly state that no data is modifed, nor how missing CVR numbers are handeled.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The action and identifier are front-loaded, and the list of returned fields is compact and informative.

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?

For a one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description adequately covers the input condition, the output contents, and the data source. The only minor gap is edge-case behavior such as a CVR number that is not found, which is secondary for a straightforward read 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 100%, so the schema already documents cvr with type, pattern, and an example. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond repeating '8-digit CVR', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Look up) and resource (full record for a Danish company by its 8-digit CVR number), then enumerates the record contents, including owners, management, and share capital. The field list clearly diferentiates it from search_companies and get_company_financials.

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 implies usage when an 8-digit CVR number is available and a full record is needed, but it gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. It does not mention that search_companies is for name-based or fuzzy searches, nor that get_company_financials is the choice for financial statements.

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