veroq_ipo_calendar

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return fields, cost (2 credits), and constraints (max 90 days, max 100 results), adding value beyond the schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with sections (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE, CONSTRAINTS) and no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 no output schema and 2 well-documented parameters, the description covers purpose, usage, returns, cost, example, and constraints. It lacks details on ordering or pagination but is sufficient for a simple list tool.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds an example call and clarifies constraints (e.g., 'max 90 days'), providing practical context beyond the schema.

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 'Get upcoming and recent IPOs from SEC EDGAR S-1 filings,' specifying the verb, resource, and source. It distinguishes from general EDGAR filings but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like veroq_earnings or veroq_edgar_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?

The 'WHEN TO USE' section says 'To track the IPO pipeline and recent public offerings,' which provides context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage boundaries.

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