Search Danish companies by name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it matches all words of the query against current company names, returns specific fields (name, status, type, industry, address), and discloses the CVR_USER/CVR_PASSWORD requirement with the error message on failure. This goes beyond annotations and is highly informative.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose and use case, matching behavior and return fields, and authentication requirement. The most critical info (use first, needs CVR number) is front-loaded. 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 search tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It covers when to use, what it does, what it returns, authentication prerequisites, and error behavior. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 adds meaning by explaining that the query can be a company name or an 8-digit CVR number, and that it matches all words. It also clarifies the return fields. This adds value beyond the schema, though it doesn't dive into edge cases or matching nuances, so 4 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 clearly states the tool's function: finding a Danish company's CVR number by name, and also checking a CVR number. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that 'every other tool needs the CVR number', positioning this as the entry point. This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use it first when you only have a name') and explains that all other tools require the CVR number, making the selection logic unambiguous. It also mentions the authentication prerequisite and the error behavior, which helps the agent anticipate failure modes.

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