get_ipo_detail

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds specific data fields returned (issue price, PE, etc.), which aligns with the read-only nature. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise, with a single core sentence, a brief strategy tag, an example, and parameter docs. Every element serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and parameter adequately. The example provides concrete usage. Could potentially mention the required suffix convention, but it's implied.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description clarifies the parameter as 'New stock symbol', adding domain-specific meaning beyond the bare schema. The example with '301389.SZ' further clarifies the expected format.

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 IPO detail for a symbol' and lists specific fields (issue price, PE, industry, sponsor). It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_ipo_calendar' by suggesting use after that tool.

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 strategy tag explicitly advises using this tool after finding an IPO from get_ipo_calendar, providing clear context for when to use it. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the positive directive is sufficient.

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