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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output type (sentiment score), range (-100 to +100), and trend data behavior ('for the last N days'). It does not mention rate limits or auth, but for a read-only market data tool, the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 core purpose and output. The final sentence about the paid HTTP endpoint is slightly extraneous for an MCP tool selection context, but it does not significantly detract from clarity.

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 simple (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), and the description provides the necessary context: what the score means, range, trend, and intended use cases. It stops short of detailing exact response structure, but given the low complexity, it is sufficiently complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by connecting the 'days' parameter to 'trend data for the last N days', giving meaning beyond the schema's default/min/max. Since there is only one parameter and the schema already defines its bounds, this is adequate.

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 identifies the tool as accessing IPOSignal's proprietary market sentiment score, with a specific verb ('Access') and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_ipo_social_sentiment by focusing on 'market sentiment' rather than social sentiment, and includes the -100 to +100 range.

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 provides clear use cases: identify favorable IPO windows, time investment entries, and assess market appetite. It implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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