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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden: it does disclose the derived-metric definition (gain vs. issue price), the two measurement points (open and close), and the sort order, which are meaningful behavioral details. It stops short of stating that it is a read-only, non-paginated query (implied by 'returns'), any rate limits, or what happens for IPOs lacking close data.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, with the example input providing maximum illustration at minimal cost. No filler.

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 and no annotations, the description does enough to convey what comes back conceptually (gains at open and close, newest first). It could say more about the response fields or edge cases (e.g., upcoming listings with no close price), which is the only remaining gap for a zero-annotation tool.

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 both parameters (board enum, limit 1-100) are already fully documented with defaults and bounds. The description only restates them as 'optional board and row limit' and adds a worked example; it contributes nothing new about semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific resource (listing-day gains of listed Indian IPOs), the exact metrics (gain vs. issue price at open and at close), and the ordering (newest listing first). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools (ipo-details, ipo-lookup, ipo-calendar, check-allotment) without opening any 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?

Usage is implied by the content ('listing-day gains'), and the example input demonstrates a typical call with defaults, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to a sibling for related needs. An agent must infer the use case from the purpose statement alone.

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