load_guideline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: the guideline's four topic areas and the fact that it carries conditions of use, so the agent knows to consult it for policy constraints. It does not say anything about the form of the returned content, though the output schema covers that.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the content scope and closing with the call trigger. Every clause names a distinct topic area, so nothing is filler.

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 zero-param, read-only documentation tool with an output schema, the description supplies what matters: what the guideline covers and when to read it. The only mild gap is that it does not indicate the guideline's form or roughly how much material it contains, which would help an agent budget context.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly makes no parameter claims, which is consistent with the empty schema.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns: guidance on finding filings, reading an exported filing, the relationship to a company-profile skill, and conditions of use. That is enough to distinguish it from list_filings and export_filing, which are action tools rather than documentation. It loses a point because it is a noun phrase with no explicit verb stating that the tool loads/returns the guideline.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: "Read it before your first search," which tells the agent precisely when to call this rather than a sibling. The content list also implies the agent should come here before export_filing for reading instructions. No alternatives are left to inference given the two siblings are named by function in the content description.

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