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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, which covers the safety profile. The description adds the 'paid' qualifier, indicating a potential access or cost restriction not captured by the annotations. However, it does not elaborate on what 'paid' means or what the calendar returns, so the disclosure is minimal.

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 under-specified rather than concise. It consists of a single phrase that does not earn its place because it adds little beyond the tool name. A concise description would convey useful information in few words, but this one omits essential details about parameters, output, and usage.

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 calendar tool with no output schema and two undescribed parameters, the description should explain the return format, date filtering, and any restrictions. The description only says 'IPO calendar (paid),' which does not clarify what data is returned, how to specify a date range, or how this differs from earnings_calendar and economic_calendar. The lack of output schema makes this a significant gap.

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?

The schema has two string parameters ('to' and 'from') with no descriptions, resulting in 0% schema coverage. The description does not mention these parameters at all, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. The only hint is the example in the schema, which is not referenced or expanded in the description.

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 'IPO calendar (paid)' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool's name and title. It identifies the domain (IPOs) but does not specify a verb or action, leaving the agent to infer that it lists or shows IPO events. It differentiates only slightly from sibling calendars like earnings_calendar and economic_calendar by naming IPOs.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about the date range parameters, typical use cases, or exclusions (e.g., 'use this for upcoming IPOs'). It also does not mention any alternatives, leaving the agent without a basis for tool selection.

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