get_capital_raises

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It discloses the dataset size (11,088 events, 130 issuers), types of events, and return fields. It implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but does not mention authentication or rate limits. Still, it provides sufficient transparency for a 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?

The description is two sentences followed by a list of event types and example use cases. It is well-structured, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a comprehensive overview: data scope, event types, return fields, and usage examples. It equips the agent to understand the tool's capabilities and constraints without needing further context.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds context by listing event types that match the 'type' parameter values and providing example tickers. It enhances understanding beyond bare schema descriptions.

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 states it retrieves capital raise history for an NZX company, enumerates event types, and provides example queries. It is specific and distinct from siblings like 'get_stock_prices' or 'get_dividends'.

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 gives explicit use case phrases like 'capital raises for [company]' and 'buyback history', which help the agent decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings.

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