get_guideline

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that PDF guidelines are text-extracted and that section search is supported, adding behavioral nuance beyond a simple retrieval. It does not explain the return format or error handling, but for a read-only getter, it provides reasonable transparency.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a structured list. Although lengthy, the bullet-style mapping and search capability note are each useful and directly support correct parameter usage. It is concise for the amount of information conveyed.

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 two-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the essential usage: supported resources, input naming conventions, and search behavior. It omits details like return format or queuing, but these are less critical given the tool's simple retrieval nature.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating all valid guideline names and their formal equivalents, which goes beyond the schema's brief examples. This effectively serves as a dynamic enum for the guideline_name parameter.

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 retrieves FSA guidelines, supervisory guidelines, and Q&A, using a specific verb (取得する) and resource. It also provides a comprehensive mapping of abbreviations to formal names, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_law and search_law that target legal texts.

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 lists all supported guideline types and notes that section search works for both HTML and PDF versions, giving clear context on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when to use get_law instead), though the scope is obvious from the resource list.

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