read_company_published

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool reads the published document, which is a read operation with no side effects. However, it does not mention behaviors like what happens if no published version exists, authentication needs, or rate limits. Basic transparency is achieved.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence defines purpose, the second adds actionable context. It is front-loaded with key information.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and usage adequately. It explains what the tool returns (the published document) and how to use it. However, it does not describe the return structure, which might be needed for full invocation, but this is a minor gap for a simple read tool.

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?

There are no parameters; schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description does not add parameter details, but none are needed. This is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 this tool reads the LIVE published company document, contrasting with the draft version returned by read_company. It uses specific verbs ('Read') and resource ('LIVE published company document'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tool read_company.

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 indicates when to use this tool (to read the published version) and contrasts with read_company for the draft. It also suggests a use case: diffing the two to see pending changes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the contrast is strong enough.

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