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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It reveals the output composition, the aggregate-only behavior, and the one-of parameter constraint. This is strong transparency for a read-only sentiment tool, though it omits rate limits or error behavior.

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 three focused sentences: first introduces the function and output, second clarifies the scope of returns, third states the parameter requirement and alternative endpoint. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

In the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains return values (score range, label, post tallies, summary). It also conveys the critical parameter constraint. It does not cover error handling or authentication, but these are less critical for a simple fetch operation.

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's 'Provide exactly one of companyId, symbol, or cik' adds essential semantics beyond the bare schema. It clarifies that the three string parameters are alternative identifiers, even if it doesn't detail each parameter's format.

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: obtaining IPOSignal's X/Twitter social-sentiment reading for an IPO. It details the output metrics (score, label, tallies, summary) and explicitly notes it returns only the aggregate signal, not posts, which distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 context for when to use the tool ('for a specific IPO') and instructs to 'Provide exactly one of companyId, symbol, or cik,' which is essential usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria relative to sibling tools like get_ipo_sentiment.

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