Get recently updated companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It communicates that the tool returns a feed and describes each update's content (orgnr, change type, timestamp), but it does not disclose ordering, pagination behavior, or any potential limitations. 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and resource, and each sentence provides meaningful context (use cases and output shape). No wasted words.

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 simple feed tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, use cases, and the core return elements. It could mention pagination or result ordering, but the essentials are present and proportionate to the tool's complexity.

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 67% with descriptions for 'dato' and 'oppdateringsid', and 'size' is self-explanatory. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so it neither strongly compensates nor falls short.

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 action ('Fetches a feed') and the resource ('entities (companies) that were recently updated in the Norwegian business registry'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lookup_company and search_companies by emphasizing the update-feed nature and the inclusion of change type and timestamp.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'monitoring changes to specific companies' and 'watching for new registrations / status changes.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for update feeds versus lookup/search tools.

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