Get Fortnox Company Information

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by explicitly listing the returned data fields (company name, organisation number, addresses, contact details) and notes it's 'other company information,' which helps set expectations about the response. It does not introduce any contradicting behavior.

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 structured with clear sections and is not overly long, but it contains redundancy: the initial sentence already states what is returned, and the 'Returns' section repeats nearly the same detail. This duplication makes it slightly less concise than it could be.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, read-only annotations), the description is complete. It identifies the resource, enumerates the returned fields, and mentions the optional output format. With rich annotations covering the operational context, no additional information is needed.

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% and the parameter 'response_format' already has a description and enum in the schema. The description's 'Args' section repeats this information without adding new semantics, so it adds no meaningful value beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the specific resource: 'information about the company connected to this Fortnox account.' It distinguishes from siblings like fortnox_get_account or fortnox_get_customer by focusing on company-level info. The name and title reinforce this purpose.

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 gives clear context: this is for retrieving company information from the connected Fortnox account. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to know when to select it over other getters. A brief alternative note would elevate it to 5.

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