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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states what kind of data is returned (IPO event calendar), which implies a read-only lookup, but it does not mention the time window, default behavior, or response format. This is adequate but thin.

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 very short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause contributes. It loses some points because the omission of parameter context edges toward under-specification rather than mere conciseness.

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 single-optional-parameter read-only calendar tool with an output schema, the description covers selection and general intent well. The main gap is the undefined 'days' parameter, which prevents fully confident invocation without further reasoning.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the single 'days' parameter. The bare integer with default 15 is ambiguous regarding units and direction, so the agent cannot confidently customize the calendar window.

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 precisely identifies the resource as an IPO calendar covering 发行/上市/中签 (issuance/listing/lottery), and explicitly ties it to user queries containing '新股/打新'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling ashare_* tools.

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 condition: use when the user asks about 新股/打新. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternatives among the sibling tools, so routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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