list_ipos

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying 'upcoming or historical' scope, but doesn't disclose other traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what data is returned. With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral details.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place.

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 complexity (11 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema details provided in context), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return values, or behavioral constraints beyond basic scope. For a tool with many undocumented parameters, more completeness is needed.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'upcoming or historical' but doesn't explain how to use the 11 parameters (e.g., ticker, listing_date filters, limit, sort) to achieve this. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 'Retrieve upcoming or historical IPOs' clearly states the verb (retrieve) and resource (IPOs), and specifies the scope (upcoming or historical). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools that also retrieve financial data (like list_dividends, list_splits, etc.), so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or suggest other tools for related tasks (e.g., filtering by ticker vs. date). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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