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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the data source (registrar's official records), the exact set of return outcomes, and a privacy trait (PAN is used once and never stored). It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the privacy guarantee and a compact example. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no wasted preamble.

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 simple two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description explains the return categories and the authoritative data source, which is sufficient to invoke it correctly. It leaves minor edge-case and error behavior unspecified, but the core lookup semantics are 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, setting the baseline at 3. The example input reinforces the expected formats for ipo and pan, but the description does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it takes an IPO and PAN and returns whether that PAN was allotted shares in the Indian IPO. It also enumerates the possible outcomes (allotted, not allotted, no record) and names the data source, making it clearly distinct from siblings like ipo-calendar, ipo-details, ipo-lookup, and listing-gains.

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 use case is clear from the description: checking a specific PAN's allotment status for a specific IPO. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as ipo-lookup or ipo-details, nor does it state any when-not-to-use conditions.

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