Brreg: søk etter foretak på navn

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 search capability and the municipality filter, but does not mention result limits, pagination, error behavior, or what 'same fields' actually are. The source and license are useful metadata but not behavioral traits.

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?

Two sentences with the purpose in the first sentence and source/license in the second. No unnecessary detail, perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should be more self-contained. It references 'same fields as lookup' without defining them, and omits any mention of the 'antall' parameter or result format. The information about source and license is nice but not enough for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 only 33% (only kommunenummer has a description). The description explains 'navn' as the search term and 'kommunenummer' via the municipality filter, but it does not explain 'antall' (number of results). It partially compensates for the schema gaps but leaves one parameter undocumented.

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 a specific verb ('Søker') and resource ('Enhetsregisteret'), with scope ('på navn') and an optional filter ('begrenset til én kommune'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'brreg_foretak' by noting it returns the same fields as lookup, implying this is the search variant.

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 name-based searches and mentions an optional municipality restriction, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool vs. alternatives. There is no direct reference to 'brreg_foretak' as the lookup alternative, only a vague 'samme felter som oppslag'.

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