Brreg: årsregnskap for et foretak

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the data source, license, and that results are per-year financial figures, but it does not mention output format, historical depth, or pagination/limits. For a simple read-only lookup this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose and usage condition. The source/license line adds attribution but is not directly operational; still, it is short and does not detract meaningfully.

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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the returned financial fields, the use case, and the data source. It could be slightly more specific about the temporal scope of 'per år' and that this covers Norwegian enterprises, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 single parameter orgnr has 100% schema description coverage with '9 siffer'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Henter innsendte årsregnskap') and names the concrete financial fields returned: driftsinntekter, driftsresultat, årsresultat, eiendeler, and egenkapital. It also distinguishes the tool from existence-check siblings with 'ikke bare om det finnes.'

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 says when to use the tool: when the question is about company size or solvency, not merely whether the company exists. This is clear usage guidance and implicitly routes the agent away from brreg_søk or brreg_foretak.

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