get_ipos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it mostly restates output-format mechanics ('Text default; set format=json') that the schema already encodes. It never states that the call is read-only, what the date window defaults to when start/end are omitted, whether listing data is delayed or live, or anything about limits — all material for an unannotated data-retrieval tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the usage hint and the format note. Every sentence is on-topic, though the middle sentence is close to filler given how self-evident the IPO domain is.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description partly compensates by naming the returned content ('pricing and deal details'). For a simple, zero-required-parameter query tool with 100% schema coverage this is close to sufficient, with the main gap being the default date-window behavior.

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 100% with four fully documented, optional parameters, so the schema already does the heavy lifting and a 3 baseline applies. The description adds the format=json excerpt, but that duplicates the enum in the schema and adds nothing about how start/end bound the returned IPO window.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Returns upcoming and recent IPO listings with pricing and deal details'), which is specific and cannot be confused with any sibling tool, all of which cover stocks, financials, options, screeners, or calendars. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with siblings, but no sibling overlaps its domain, so differentiation is inherent.

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?

'Use for tracking new market listings' gives an implied usage context but names no alternatives, no when-not conditions, and no prerequisites. For a domain as distinct as IPOs this is workable, but it is guidance by assertion rather than routing.

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