norway_get_company

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the two response modes (compact vs. full) and what 'full' includes (addresses, industry codes, capital info), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, followed by parameter guidance. Every word earns its place with zero waste. Efficiently structured for quick comprehension.

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, comprehensive annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, parameter effects, and response modes without redundancy.

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 50% schema description coverage (only 'org_number' has description), the description compensates by explaining the 'full' parameter's effect on response format. It adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying what 'full=true' provides, though it doesn't detail the 'org_number' format beyond '9-digit'.

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 ('Get company details'), target resource ('by 9-digit org number'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on Norwegian companies (unlike Denmark/Finland tools) and individual lookup (vs. batch/search tools). It provides a complete verb+resource+scope statement.

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 about when to use the 'full' parameter for complete data, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'norway_batch_get_companies' or 'norway_search_companies'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by country focus but lacks explicit comparison.

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