get_csrc_ipo_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the two return shapes, including an error branch, which signals graceful failure handling. However, it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or data freshness, and the return detail is somewhat redundant with the existing output schema.

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 short and front-loads the purpose before the return-shape block. Every sentence is relevant, though the returns block spends most of the text on information the output schema already provides.

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, return values need not be explained, yet the description spends its text there while leaving usage and the ambiguous company_or_code parameter unaddressed. For a simple one-parameter query tool this is adequate but has visible gaps.

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 0% and the single parameter company_or_code is undocumented in the schema. The description never explains whether the argument should be a company name, a stock code, or both, nor its format, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: query CSRC IPO (首发) application review status for a company. This is clearly distinguishable from the near-named sibling get_csrc_merger_review. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use for other CSRC review types, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. There is no mention of the alternative get_csrc_merger_review or of prerequisites such as needing a valid company name vs a stock code. Usage is only implied by the verb 'query'.

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