get_takeovers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It describes the tool as read-only (getting data) and lists returned fields, but does not disclose potential restrictions, authentication needs, rate limits, or data freshness. This adds context but has gaps.

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 concise yet informative, front-loaded with purpose, followed by supporting details and examples. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is logical and easy to parse.

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's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the data scope, fields returned, and provides usage examples, adequately covering the agent's needs for selection and invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing deal types explicitly and providing example usage that implies parameter combinations. It goes beyond the schema by giving context (e.g., year can be range).

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 clearly states 'Get M&A and takeover activity for NZX companies', specifying the resource and action. It includes specific statistics (313 deals, 51 issuers, time range) and lists deal types, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on other data like insolvency or accounting.

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 example queries ('any takeover activity for [company]?', 'recent M&A deals', 'scheme of arrangement history'), indicating when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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