norway_get_roles

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying what data is returned ('person names, birth dates, resignation status'). While annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, the description enhances understanding of the tool's output behavior without contradicting the 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 extremely concise with just two sentences that are front-loaded with essential information. Every word serves a clear purpose, providing maximum utility with zero wasted text.

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 presence of comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) and an output schema, the description provides complete context for this read-only lookup tool. It clearly states purpose, usage guidelines, and return data, making it fully adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 fully documents the single required parameter 'org_number'. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline expectation without additional value.

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 board members, CEO, auditors, and other roles') and resource ('for a Norwegian company'), with explicit differentiation from sibling tool 'norway_get_signature_rights' for signature authority. This provides a precise verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from alternatives.

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 ('for board members, CEO, auditors, and other roles') and when to use an alternative ('For signature authority only, use norway_get_signature_rights'). This provides clear guidance on tool selection versus the named sibling.

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