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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels. It discloses the paid nature, that the first call returns exact payment terms (amount, asset, network), and that a second call with the signed payload settles and returns data. This is key behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise sentences: purpose/views, payment flow, and free alternative. Front-loaded with the tool's core function, each sentence adds essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description could specify return format, but it covers the essential aspects: purpose, available views, payment protocol, and alternative tool. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though the actual response structure is not described.

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. The description adds minor value by clarifying that the 'pipeline' view means 'in registration' and reinforces the view options. The x_payment explanation in the description overlaps with the schema, but the 'in registration' clarification is a useful addition.

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The description clearly states it provides SEC IPO pipeline data with four specific views (pipeline, priced, expected, withdrawn). It distinguishes itself from the sibling `pricing` tool by positioning itself as the pipeline-focused tool, making its purpose and scope immediately clear.

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 explicitly explains the paid nature and the two-step payment flow (call without x_payment to receive terms, sign, then call again with x_payment). It also directs users who want 'every price at once' to the free `pricing` tool, providing clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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