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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the dataset is described as ~11,700 structured events across 131 issuers, and that it includes amounts, pricing, and dilution. This gives an agent a sense of data scope and content without contradicting 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the primary purpose up front, and the second sentence adds valuable detail about event types and dataset scale. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool.

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 an output schema present and full parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is largely complete for invocation. It clearly identifies the resource and what is included. The only minor gap is that it does not clarify the relationship between the 'buybacks' filter parameter and the 'type=buyback' option, but this is not essential for basic use.

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 input schema already documents all five parameters including type values, year format, and limit. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it mentions event types and pricing information, but these do not clarify parameter formats or relationships.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('capital raise history for an NZX company'), and clarifies the scope by enumerating event types such as placements, rights issues, SPPs, IPOs, bonds, buybacks, and DRPs. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_dividends or get_takeovers.

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 description gives clear context: this is for capital raise history of an NZX company, which implies when it should be used. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the domain is specific enough that an agent can infer appropriate use.

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