Veroq

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses cost ('2 credits'), data source ('SEC EDGAR'), return fields (company name, ticker, filing date, form type, location), and hard constraints (max 90 days, max 100 results). Does not mention caching, 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?

Excellent structured format with clear headers (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE, CONSTRAINTS). Zero wasted words; information density is high with front-loaded purpose. Example is appropriately sized.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema, description is comprehensive. Manually documents return fields to compensate for missing output schema, includes cost and constraints. No gaps remain for agent invocation decision-making.

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 has 100% description coverage, establishing baseline 3. Description adds value through concrete JSON example ({ 'days': 30, 'limit': 20 }) and constraint reinforcement (max 90/100), clarifying typical usage patterns beyond raw schema definitions.

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?

Clear specific verb ('Get') and resource ('upcoming and recent IPOs from SEC EDGAR S-1 filings'). Distinct from sibling veroq_filings by specifying IPO-specific S-1 filings rather than general SEC filings.

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?

Explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section states purpose ('To track the IPO pipeline and recent public offerings'). Lacks explicit comparison to alternatives (e.g., veroq_filings for general filings) or exclusion criteria.

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