get_ipo_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds modest value by naming the data source (OpenDART equity filings) and disclosing that the equal-allocation estimate is optional and carries its formula/assumptions in the response, but says nothing about freshness, coverage limits, or failure modes.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that names the artifact first and then the returned fields; dense but every clause carries information. The colonic list is slightly packed, keeping it just short of ideal.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description covers source, contents, and the optional estimate behavior. Remaining gaps (freshness of filings, interaction between limit and days_back) are minor and largely handled by the schema's own constraints.

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%, so all seven parameters (limit, days_back, ratios, expected_subscribers, lot size) are already documented in the schema. The description only lightly ties the equal-allocation estimate to its inputs and does not explain the ratio interplay beyond what the schema states, matching the baseline 3.

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 specific verb+resource: upcoming/ongoing IPO schedule sourced from OpenDART equity filings, and enumerates what it returns (subscription dates, price text, underwriters, optional equal-allocation estimate). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_quote/get_ohlcv (market data) and get_disclosure (generic filings). No explicit sibling comparison, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is only implied through the temporal scope ("upcoming/ongoing") and the days_back parameter; there is no stated when-to-use/when-not or pointer to an alternative such as get_disclosure for non-IPO filings. An agent can infer the intent but gets no routing guidance.

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