lookup_business

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the data source (Brreg) and the categories of commitment signals, but lacks details on edge cases (e.g., business not found, rate limits, required permissions).

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 a single paragraph with front-loaded purpose. It is concise but includes some marketing language ('can't be faked') that slightly reduces efficiency. Overall, it is well-structured for quick scanning.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values. It lists the commitment categories, which is helpful, but omits details on output format, error handling, pagination, and data freshness. It is moderately complete but not fully sufficient for all agent needs.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description does not add substantial semantic value beyond the schema; it mentions the query parameter implicitly but does not enrich the meaning of 'maxResults' or provide additional constraints.

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 searches for a Norwegian business and returns its commitment profile from public data. It specifies the verb 'search' and the resource 'Norwegian business', but does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'lookup_business_by_org'.

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 implies usage for verifying Norwegian businesses via government registers and lists the return data. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lookup_business_by_org' or when not to use it.

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