List published filings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only the ordering behavior ('newest first') but omits other behavioral traits such as pagination, error handling for invalid CVR, empty results, or the exact response structure. Given the lack of annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, includes relevant details (filing types, ordering) without redundancy or fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no nested objects), but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context on return format or edge cases. It covers the core behavior but leaves an agent without details on what the response looks like or how failures are handled. Adequate for basic invocation, not fully complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (cvr and limit), including format and constraints. The description itself adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource (filings published by a Danish company), and enumerates the types (annual reports, half-year reports, their documents) plus ordering (newest first). It inherently distinguishes from the sibling get_financials, which likely focuses on financial figures rather than filings.

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 its purpose clearly but never explicitly names alternatives or gives when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. An agent could infer that this tool is for listing filings while get_financials handles financial data, but no direct comparison or exclusion is stated.

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