run_no_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add genuinely useful non-schema information — '5 point per returned record' credits the cost of the call, and the field enumeration previews the response shape. However, nothing is said about authentication, rate limits, record-not-found behavior, or whether the lookup is a read-only/safe operation.

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?

Purpose and key are front-loaded in the first clause, then the returned-field list follows. The field inventory is long, but it earns its place because there is no output schema to describe the return shape.

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 single-lookup tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned data and disclosing the per-record cost. The remaining gap is the absence of any error/not-found or access-permission context, which keeps it short of a 5.

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% and the single parameter already documents 'Organisation number or registry URL' with an example, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the same accepted formats without adding format rules, validation, or normalization detail 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 ('Get one company') and pins the exact source ('Norway registry, Brønnøysundregistrene, Enhetsregisteret'), which cleanly separates it from run_no_companies_search. It also enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows precisely what this lookup yields without opening a schema.

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 lookup key is made explicit — 'by organisation number or registry URL' — which tells the agent this is a single-record retrieval rather than a discovery call. It does not name run_no_companies_search as the path to obtain an org number, so the alternative is implied rather than stated.

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