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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description goes further by disclosing the source (HKEXnews 'GLOBAL OFFERING' filings), the non-biotech-specific coverage, the Main Board/GEM-only scope, and the rolling HKEXnews window limitation mentioned in the `since` parameter. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 appropriately sized for the tool's richness, with every sentence contributing: definition, example use cases, source and coverage, return fields, and exclusion. It is front-loaded with the core purpose before moving to details and alternatives, with 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?

For a tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, its source, its scope and exclusions, and its date-window constraint. An agent has enough information to decide whether to invoke it and how to set parameters 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical guidance by explaining that `query` is a company-name filter and that date filtering is constrained to the current rolling HKEXnews window, which enriches the schema's parameter descriptions. It doesn't fully compensate for what the schema already documents, but it supplements it meaningfully.

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 explicitly states the tool returns HKEX Global Offering prospectuses and formal notices for IPOs/placements, and it names the exact resources (company, stock code, document category, filing date, PDF link). It also differentiates itself from cninfo_disclosure_search by noting the STAR Market is a different exchange, so an agent can clearly identify when this tool is the right one.

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?

It gives concrete example queries ("recent HK IPOs", "HKEX biotech IPO financing"), explains that it covers all industries but can be filtered via the `query` parameter, and explicitly points to cninfo_disclosure_search for A-share STAR Market IPOs. This provides both positive and negative usage guidance with a named alternative.

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