denmark_search_by_phone

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations indicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent operations, the description adds that '+45 prefix auto-removed' (formatting behavior) and 'Not all companies have registered phones' (coverage limitation). This provides practical usage information that annotations don't cover.

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 yet complete - just two sentences that each provide essential information. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides two critical behavioral notes. There's zero wasted language or redundancy.

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 simple nature (single parameter, read-only operation), the presence of comprehensive annotations, and the existence of an output schema, the description provides exactly what's needed. It covers purpose, key behavioral notes, and limitations without unnecessary detail.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the single required 'phone' parameter. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the '+45 prefix auto-removed' behavior, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about the phone parameter beyond what's implied in 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find Danish company by phone number.' It specifies the resource (Danish company) and the search method (by phone number). It also distinguishes from siblings by focusing on phone-based lookup rather than name-based search or other country-specific tools.

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: for finding Danish companies using phone numbers. It mentions '+45 prefix auto-removed' which helps users understand formatting requirements. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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