lookup_business_by_org

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool performs a lookup from public data (Brønnøysund Register Centre), implying read-only and non-destructive behavior. This is sufficient for transparency, though it does not detail any caveats like rate limits or data freshness.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, input, and output. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information, earning its place. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sentence for output details).

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?

For a simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the input and the expected return values (four signals). It is complete enough for an agent to understand what results to expect, though adding a brief note on the format of the returned data would improve completeness.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters (orgNumber) with description. The tool description adds context about what the parameter is used for (Norwegian organization number) and example format, but essentially repeats schema info. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 action (lookup), the resource (Norwegian business by organization number), and the output (commitment profile with specific signals: longevity, financial health, operational activity, overall commitment score). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lookup_github_repo or lookup_npm_package by focusing on Norwegian businesses.

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 when to use this tool (when needing commitment profile for a Norwegian business), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparison to sibling tools such as lookup_business or query_commitment. Usage context is clear but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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