run_dk_companies_search

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 adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the credit cost ('1 point per returned record') and the fields returned, but it omits whether the operation is read-only, how pagination behaves beyond the schema, and any rate or permission constraints.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed immediately by return fields and cost. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 4-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece by listing the returned fields and the cost model. It stops short of explaining pagination behavior or auth requirements, but the schema already covers all parameters, so the description is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents keyword, status, max_items, and start_page. The description only re-states 'by company name' (the keyword parameter) and adds no syntax, matching behavior, or filter semantics 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the Denmark company registry (CVR) by company name') and lists the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from a generic lookup, but it never names or contrasts with the sibling lookup tool run_dk_companies, so it falls short of full sibling 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 no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention when to prefer this search over run_dk_companies (detail lookup) or other country-registry tools, nor does it explain any prerequisites or pagination usage.

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