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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses useful behavioral details: return keys (data.events, top-level page), empty-result semantics, cursor pagination rules, and date-omission fallback behavior. It stops short of covering auth, rate limits, or explicit read-only guarantees, but 'Get' strongly implies a read operation.

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?

Front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by return shape and pagination instructions. Three compact sentences with no filler; every sentence provides actionable guidance.

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 six optional parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately explains return keys, empty results, and pagination. It omits deeper detail about event fields or authentication constraints, but covers the essentials needed to call and paginate correctly.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description adds cross-parameter workflow meaning: keep filters unchanged across pages, pass page.next_cursor verbatim, and use data.from/data.to from the first response when dates were omitted. This is useful semantics beyond individual parameter descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get IPO events' with date/symbol/market filters and cursor pagination. This clearly distinguishes it from other calendar siblings like dividend, split, and report calendars, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Provides invocation guidance by describing pagination behavior and how to handle omitted dates, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling calendar tools or when not to use it. Usage is implied by the IPO-specific purpose.

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