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 safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the guideline covers and when to read it, but it does not describe the return format or invocation behavior beyond the output schema already provided.

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 a single sentence with a clear list of covered topics followed by the call to action 'Read it before your first search.' It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, though the dense topic list could be slightly easier to scan.

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 no-parameter documentation-loading tool with an output schema and clear read-only annotations, the description supplies enough to decide when and why to call it. It names the covered domains and explicitly directs the agent to read it before its first search.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter meanings for the description to clarify. The schema also reports 100% description coverage, making the baseline for a no-parameter tool 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 clearly identifies this as a usage guideline for the Japanese law tools and enumerates the topics it covers, such as finding laws, reading articles by elm, searching law text, pinning a point in time, e-Gov coverage, and conditions of use. It is distinguishable from the sibling search/read tools as a meta-documentation resource, though it does not use an explicit verb like 'load' or 'returns'.

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 explicit timing guidance: 'Read it before your first search.' This tells the agent when to use it relative to the sibling search and read tools. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives, but the first-search condition is clear enough for correct selection.

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