search_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reports the return fields and the search-by-name behavior, but does not mention match semantics (exact vs fragment), ordering, pagination, or error behavior. For a search tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 one concise sentence that states the tool's action, return value, and the follow-up routing to lookup_company. Every clause earns its place and there is no 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?

The tool is low-complexity with two parameters and no output schema, and the description provides the essential output fields togeer with a clear next-step alternative. It does not describe pagination or total result counts, but these are not critical for a basic search tool and the limit parameter is already in the schema.

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 parameters are already well documented (query and limit with defaults/maximum). The description adds no extra meaning beyond clarifying that the search is by name, which is already implied by the query parameter's 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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('Danish companies'), and specifies the key fields returned (CVR number, name, status, address). It also distinguishes itself from lookup_company by explicitly pointing to that tool for the full record.

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?

It gives concrete guidance: use lookup_company on a hit for the full record. It does not explicitly address when to prefer get_company_financials, but the sibling's name and the tool's own focus make that distinction reasonably clear.

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