denmark_get_by_pnumber

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it returns 'the owning company's details,' which gives context about output content. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise with two clear sentences: one stating the purpose and another about the return value. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no words. Every sentence earns its place by adding value beyond the tool name.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single required parameter), rich annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), and existence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool does and what it returns. The main gap is lack of sibling differentiation, but overall it provides enough context for basic understanding.

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%, with the single parameter 'p_number' documented as 'required.' The description adds that it's for a 'production unit P-number,' providing semantic context about what the parameter represents. This aligns with the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high, as the description adds some meaning without duplicating schema information.

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 purpose: 'Get parent company for a production unit P-number. Returns the owning company's details.' It specifies the action (get), resource (parent company), and input (production unit P-number). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'denmark_get_company' or 'denmark_get_production_units', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple Denmark-specific sibling tools (denmark_get_company, denmark_get_production_units, denmark_search_by_phone, denmark_search_companies), there's no indication of when this P-number lookup is preferred over general company searches or production unit queries.

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