search_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it only says 'various filters' without mentioning pagination, sorting, response shape, or how filters like hierarchical industry codes work. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the name already suggests.

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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary elaboration. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, though 'various filters' is somewhat vague and could be more specific without adding length.

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 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, pagination, or when to prefer this over sibling search tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to use the tool correctly.

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%, with detailed parameter descriptions covering constraints and examples, so the tool description does not need to restate each filter. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameters; the description itself adds no extra semantic value.

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 for companies in the Norwegian Business Registry, using the specific verb 'Search' and a defined resource. While it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_subunits or get_company, the 'search' vs 'get' distinction is implied.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_company or search_subunits. The existence of filters implies a broad search use case, but the description does not state this or give any exclusion criteria.

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