norway_get_signature_rights

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

The annotations already indicate this is a read-only, open-world, idempotent operation. The description adds useful context by specifying the scope of data retrieved (signature rights and prokura holders) and its limitations compared to other tools, which enhances behavioral understanding without contradicting 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 and front-loaded, consisting of only two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage guidelines without any wasted words. Every sentence adds clear value.

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 (one parameter), high schema coverage, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It adequately explains what the tool does and when to use it, with no need to detail return values or parameters.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'org_number' documented as 'required'. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 with specific verbs ('Get who can sign') and resources ('signaturrett and prokura holders'), and explicitly distinguishes it from its sibling tool ('norway_get_roles') by specifying what it does not cover ('full board/role list'). This provides precise differentiation.

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 provides usage guidance by stating when to use this tool (for signature rights and prokura holders) and when to use an alternative ('norway_get_roles' for full board/role list). This gives clear context and exclusions, helping the agent choose correctly.

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