get_recent_ipos

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds genuine domain context by defining what each returned list contains and the underpinning filing types (424B4, S-1, F-1), which helps the agent interpret results; it does not, however, mention rate limits or any behavioral caveats.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then structured Args/Returns sections. Every line carries information, though the docstring formatting is slightly heavier than a tight prose definition would be.

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?

Purpose, both parameters, and the two return categories are all covered, so an agent has enough to invoke and interpret the call. An output schema exists, so explaining returns is a bonus rather than a requirement, and the definition supplies it adequately.

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 description must carry the load, and it does: 'limit: Max companies per list' and 'days: Look-back window in days' fully explain both parameters with their defaults. It does not add much beyond these definitions, but the gap created by the empty schema is closed.

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 and resource ('Get recent IPO activity from EDGAR') and unpacks it into the two result sets it produces (priced prospectuses vs. new registrations). No sibling tool covers IPOs, so the agent can route here unambiguously.

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 implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to any alternative/sibling tool. The look-back semantics hint at 'use for recent activity' but no boundaries are drawn.

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