meroshare_get_current_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states this is a list operation (read-only), which is non-destructive, but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. A read operation without side effects is transparent enough, but missing context about auth could confuse an agent.

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 a single concise sentence with no superfluous words. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool has no parameters and no output schema. The description explains what the tool does but lacks details about the return format or behavior (e.g., pagination, fields returned). For a list tool, some additional context would improve completeness.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters, the description need not add anything, earning a baseline of 4.

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 the verb 'List' and resource 'all currently open IPO, FPO, and Rights share issues available for application'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'meroshare_apply_ipo' (application) and 'meroshare_check_ipo_result' (checking results).

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 implies usage for viewing available issues but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance is given on prerequisites (e.g., login required) or exclusions.

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