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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the data categories and status examples, but does not mention response structure, pagination, sorting, or any side effects. For a read-only tool, this leaves notable behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and includes only useful distinctions. Every clause contributes value.

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?

Given one optional parameter and no output schema, the description leaves the locale parameter undocumented and does not describe the return shape. An agent could call it with defaults but would lack essential context about response fields and locale behavior.

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 schema has one parameter (locale) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention it at all. The agent is left with no explanation of how locale affects the response or what valid values exist beyond the default.

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 specifies the resource (homepage stock cards) and the exact content: upcoming IPOs (prelist, with status such as delayed/cancelled) and recently listed IPOs (recent). It also distinguishes this tool from more detailed alternatives by noting it returns the same data as the index page's sections.

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 provides context ('Same data as the index page's upcoming/recent sections') that implies a use case, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs siblings or when not to use it. No alternative tools are named.

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