Search subunits (branch offices) of Norwegian companies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the entity concept ('A subunit shares the parent's organization but has its own orgnr for reporting purposes') and scopes the search to the registry, but does not disclose pagination, return format, authentication, or any side effects. This is adequate for a read-only search tool 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 three sentences, each purposeful: the first defines the action, the second gives example use cases, and the third clarifies a domain-specific relationship. No redundant filler, front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 search tool with 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid purpose and use cases but lacks details on result shape, pagination, and any prerequisites. It is sufficient for basic invocation but incomplete for a fully informed agent.

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 67% (4 of 6 parameters described). The description indirectly references filtering by municipality and parent company, aligning with 'kommunenummer' and 'overordnetEnhet', but does not add syntax or format details for these or the pagination parameters. The added domain context slightly improves understanding beyond the schema.

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 ('Searches') and identifies the resource ('subunits (underenheter — branch offices, departments, production sites)') in the Norwegian business registry. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_companies by focusing on subunits and their parent relationship.

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 typical usage contexts: 'find all branches of a parent company' or 'locate subunits in a specific municipality'. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, but the use cases strongly imply differentiation from general company search.

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