hk_ipo_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds that results are 'cited,' which is useful, but it does not disclose source authority, return format, limitations, or whether this is a read-only lookup. For a rule-reference tool with no annotations, this is a meaningful gap.

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 one compact sentence with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the accepted topic values.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally sufficient. It tells the agent the resource and allowed topic values, but leaves unclear what each topic returns and what 'cited summary' implies for output structure.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage and no enum in the schema. The description compensates by defining the accepted topic values: fees, allocation_mechanisms, pools, settlement, and all. It does not explain what each topic covers, preventing a 5.

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 a specific resource and operation: a cited summary of HK IPO rules. It also enumerates the topical scope, making the tool's domain clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like hk_ipo_plan or hk_sell_costs, so it stops short of a 5.

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 topic list implies when to use the tool for fees, allocation mechanisms, pools, settlement, or all rules, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or comparison to sibling tools. Usage is inferable from the parameter options alone.

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