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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does describe the nature of the response (a list of IPO details) and implies a read-only operation through 'Access' and 'list', but it does not disclose whether any authentication is required, what happens when no date range is provided, or any rate limits/pagination. It adds some value beyond the schema by specifying the returned fields.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds some promotional language ('Stay up to date') but also lists useful details about the returned data. Overall, it is appropriately sized with minimal waste.

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?

The tool is a simple 2-parameter list operation with no output schema. The description covers the essential purpose and data fields, but it does not explain the semantics of the optional date-range parameters or what the default behavior is when omitted. Given the lack of an output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete for a fully informed usage.

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 input schema already fully describes the two parameters ('to' and 'from' with date format), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add further meaning about parameter usage, such as whether the range is required or how it filters the calendar. It effectively relies on the schema, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's function: accessing a comprehensive list of upcoming IPOs via the FMP IPO Calendar API. It names the specific resource (IPO calendar) and includes key output fields (dates, company names, pricing, exchanges), distinguishing it from other calendar tools like earnings or dividends.

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 implies use for staying up to date on upcoming IPOs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the many sibling calendar tools (e.g., getEarningsCalendar, getDividendsCalendar) or how the from/to parameters affect the results. It provides context but no exclusions or alternatives.

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