Search Norwegian companies

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are paginated and that filters include municipality, industry code, organization form, and registration status. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention error cases, result ordering, or rate limits. This is adequate but minimal.

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 consists of two sentences that are compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides usage guidance. There is no wasted wording.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description gives sufficient context for selection and invocation. It covers what the tool does and when to use it, but it does not elaborate on the return structure beyond 'paginated list'. The rich schema compensates for most gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description summarizes the filters at a high level but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. It meets the minimum viable bar.

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's function with a specific verb ('Searches'), a resource ('Norwegian business registry'), and scope ('by name and optional filters'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing search over lookup and mentioning paginated results.

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 explicitly provides usage context with 'Use this when the user wants to find a company by name, or filter by...' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for search scenarios.

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