get_ipo_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: data availability depends on the stage (e.g., 확정공모가 only appears after demand forecast), and missing values are returned as empty, not zero. This exceeds annotation coverage and provides crucial context for interpreting results.

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 remarkably concise—two sentences plus example queries—and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or redundancy. It is well-structured and easily parsed.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: stage progression and missing-value policy. It does not enumerate all possible fields, but that is adequately handled by the output schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters; instead, it explains output semantics (stage-dependent fields and missing-value handling), which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 purpose: it returns a list of IPO stocks by stage (review, demand forecast, subscription, listing). It includes example queries ('이번 주 청약 뭐 있어', '공모주 일정') that make the intended use immediately obvious. No sibling tool covers IPO schedules, so it is well-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?

The description explicitly gives example questions that trigger this tool, establishing clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but given the absence of competing IPO tools among siblings, the guidance is adequate.

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