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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by explaining what data each status bucket surfaces (competition rate and allocation results for awaiting, performance vs. offering price for listed), which tells the agent what to expect in the response.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource name, then the status semantics, then the handoff to the sibling. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming the kinds of figures returned per status. For a two-parameter read-only list tool this is close to complete, though it says nothing about ordering or pagination behavior beyond the limit cap.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by defining the real meaning of each status enum value (subscription scheduled/in-progress, closed-awaiting-listing, listed-complete) where the schema only says "기본 upcoming". It does not add anything for the limit parameter beyond the schema's default/max note.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("공모주(IPO) 목록") and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling get_ipo_offering by stating that detail lookups belong there via corp_code. An agent can tell the list tool from the detail tool without opening either schema.

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 clearly routes detail requests to get_ipo_offering with corp_code, which is explicit alternative guidance. It does not state any when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites, but the list-vs-detail split is unambiguous.

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