Brreg: slå opp foretak på organisasjonsnummer

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 discloses the returned data fields, possible status values, source, and license, which is useful. However, it does not mention error handling, response format, data freshness, or any rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 compact and well-structured: a main sentence listing the action and fields, followed by a short source/license note. Every sentence provides relevant information, and the most important details are presented first.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It lists the returned fields and provides source/license context. It could be improved by noting behavior for invalid or missing organization numbers, but it is sufficient for most use cases.

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 already provides a complete description of the only parameter 'orgnr' (9 digits, spaces allowed), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds only the context that this is the organization number to look up, which does not significantly exceed what the schema already communicates.

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 uses the specific verb 'Henter' (retrieves) and clearly identifies the resource: an enterprise by organization number. It enumerates the exact data fields returned, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'brreg_søk' that perform searches.

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 states 'for ett organisasjonsnummer' (for one organization number), providing clear context that this tool is intended for single-ID lookups. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion criteria, stopping short of a perfect score.

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