Ipo Calendar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it openly states the tool cannot retrieve real subscription/listing data, that it returns ok=false plus a template, and that it will not fabricate codes, dates, or prices. This is exactly the non-obvious behavior an agent must know before relying on the output, and it prevents hallucinated downstream reasoning.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by the honest limitation and the downstream procedure. The dated 'experimental result' parenthetical is slightly verbose but is defensible evidence for the claim, so little is wasted.

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?

For a zero-param tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior (always-degraded output, no fabrication) and the follow-up contract. The remaining detail about the shape of the template is delegated to the output schema, which is acceptable.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. No parameter information is missing because no parameters exist.

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 first line names a specific verb+resource ('打新日历') and ties it to the laogu-ipo skill, so the agent knows the domain immediately. It then precisely redefines what the tool actually does (returns ok=false plus a search template). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like unlock_notices or ann_list, which are the nearest topical neighbours.

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 tells the host exactly what to do downstream: use the returned search results per laogu-ipo's Output Contract to build the calendar, and state clearly when there are no new listings. What is missing is a 'when not to call this / call X instead' clause relative to the sibling tools.

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