get_ipo_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the time range (past 3 months) but omits critical details such as default parameter behavior, pagination, rate limits, or data freshness. The schema notes a default of 'current', but the description does not reiterate this.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate for selection. However, it lacks details on the output format or contents (e.g., fields like company name, price), leaving the agent uncertain about what the result list includes.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100%, the schema already explains the parameter fully. The tool description does not add further semantic value beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation without enhancement.

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 returns a list of IPOs on NSE, differentiating three categories (current, upcoming, past). The verb 'Get' and resource 'list of IPOs' are specific, and no sibling tool overlaps, making purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly indicates the tool is for obtaining IPO lists with time-based filtering. While it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, the context is clear, and sibling tools do not cover IPOs, so no exclusions are necessary.

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