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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is an independent, incomplete view that should be corroborated with the filing index, providing key context about data reliability. It also lists the returned fields (offer size, share count, exchange, dates). It does not dive into pagination or rate limits, but the disclosed behavior is meaningful.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by use cases and a caveat. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler. The structure is ideal for an AI agent to quickly grasp the tool.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema). The description covers what it returns, when to use it, and its limitations. It could have described the default status (upcoming) or limit behavior, but those are in the schema. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is nearly complete.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only implicitly mentions 'status' by enumerating the deal stages (priced, upcoming, filed), which mirrors the schema enum. The 'limit' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving it unexplained. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of parameter descriptions in the schema.

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 what the tool does: returns going-public deals (priced, upcoming, or filed) with specific fields (offer size, share count, exchange, dates). It distinguishes itself as a 'SECOND, independent view' of going-public activity, differentiating it from filing-index sources and sibling 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?

The description gives explicit use cases: 'Call it for new-issue supply, going-public timing, or to corroborate a private-company transition signal.' It also advises to corroborate against the filing index, implying when not to use it as the sole source. The alternative is named indirectly as 'filing index' rather than a specific sibling tool, preventing a 5.

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