Get roles (board, directors, auditor) of a company

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a key exclusion (no personal identification numbers, which require Maskinporten auth) and describes the return format ('structured role groups with person or entity role-holders'). This goes beyond a simple retrieval statement, though it doesn't cover error handling or pagination.

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 action and scope, and uses examples efficiently. No unnecessary jargon or repetition; every sentence contributes useful information.

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 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main functional purpose, a significant exclusion, and the nature of the return value. It could mention error conditions or broader authentication requirements, but it is largely complete for a straightforward retrieval 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?

The schema fully documents the only parameter (orgnr as a 9-digit Norwegian organization number) with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond noting the Norwegian context, which is already implied by the schema. Baseline for high schema coverage is 3.

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 ('Retrieves') and identifies the exact resource ('all registered roles... for a Norwegian company'). It lists example roles, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lookup_company or search_companies that focus on other aspects of company data.

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 a company's roles are needed and clarifies that personal identification numbers require separate auth, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. There is no explicit 'when-to-use' or '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.