denmark_get_production_units

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, non-destructive, and repeatable operations. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses pagination details (20 results per page default, max 100, use page parameter for more), which is not covered by annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by pagination details in a single, efficient sentence. Every part adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity (simple read operation with pagination), rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It covers key behavioral aspects like pagination, which complements the structured data effectively.

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 33% (only 'cvr' has a description), with 3 parameters total. The description adds meaning for 'page' and 'size' by explaining pagination behavior (e.g., 'Use page parameter for more results'), but does not fully detail 'size' constraints or 'cvr' format. It compensates partially for low schema coverage, aligning with the baseline expectation.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'production units (P-numbers) for a Danish company by CVR', which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'denmark_get_company' (which gets company info) or 'denmark_search_companies' (which searches). It explicitly mentions the target resource and identifier.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to retrieve production units for a Danish company using a CVR. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for basic usage. Sibling tools like 'denmark_get_by_pnumber' suggest alternatives for different queries.

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