nordic-registry-mcp-server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the 20-result max per page limitation and the 900+ result potential for common names. Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and idempotent characteristics, so the description appropriately supplements with practical constraints without contradiction.

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 waste: first sentence states purpose, second gives key constraints, third offers narrowing strategies, fourth provides alternative tool guidance. Every sentence earns its place and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 moderate complexity, low schema coverage (20%), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, constraints, usage strategies, and alternatives - providing all necessary context for an agent to use the tool effectively without needing to explain return format details.

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 only 20% schema description coverage (only 'query' has a description), the description compensates well by explaining the purpose of 'company_form' (OY/OYJ for main companies) and 'location' (city filtering), and implies 'query' usage strategies. It doesn't cover 'page' or 'size' parameters, but adds meaningful context for the most critical parameters.

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 Finnish companies by name'), identifies the resource ('Finnish companies'), and distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly mentioning 'finland_get_company' as an alternative for Y-tunnus searches. It goes beyond just restating the name/title.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'If you have a Y-tunnus, use finland_get_company instead.' It also offers specific narrowing strategies (company_form, location, exact name) and warns about common names returning many results, giving clear context for effective use.

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