lookup_business_by_org

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for behavioral transparency. It explicitly states the tool returns commitment signals (longevity, financial health, operational activity, score) and sources public data from Brønnøysund Register Centre. It omits potential details like rate limits or data freshness, but adequately conveys the read-only nature and output type.

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 two sentences long, each providing essential information: first sentence states the action and data source, second sentence lists the output signals. No wasted words.

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 (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, input, source, and return values. It does not detail the format of the return signals, but the list of signals compensates partially for the lack of output schema.

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 all requirements for the single parameter 'orgNumber' with a detailed description (9 digits, example). The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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: looking up a Norwegian business by organization number to retrieve a commitment profile from public data. It specifies the input (org number) and output (commitment signals), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'lookup_business' by emphasizing the commitment profile.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'lookup_business' for basic info, 'query_commitment' for different queries). It only describes what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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