denmark_search_companies

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it warns about the API limitation (returns only one result), explains that large companies may have multiple legal entities, and suggests query variations. While annotations cover read-only, open-world, and idempotent properties, the description provides practical usage insights that aren't captured in structured fields.

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 efficiently structured with zero wasted words: it states the purpose upfront, provides critical warnings and limitations, offers practical usage tips, and directs to alternatives. Every sentence serves a clear purpose in helping the agent use the tool correctly.

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 (search with API limitations), rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides complete contextual information. It covers purpose, limitations, usage strategies, and alternative tools, making it fully adequate for agent decision-making.

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 input schema already documents the single 'query' parameter as required. The description adds some semantic context by explaining what the query should contain (company name variations) and why, but doesn't provide additional parameter details beyond what's 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 specific action ('Search Danish companies by name') and resource ('Danish companies'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'denmark_get_company' (which uses CVR numbers) and other country-specific search tools. It provides precise differentiation beyond just the tool name.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (search by name) versus alternatives ('If you have an 8-digit CVR number, use denmark_get_company instead'), and provides guidance on query variations to improve results. It clearly defines the tool's scope and limitations.

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