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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool only works for 'covered ticker', and the no-ticker call reveals current coverage and the forward calendar. It also explains the 'gap between beat-rates and reactions' as the product, which frames the output. No contradictions with annotations.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Print Record for a covered ticker'). Every clause adds detail about the data returned or the no-ticker behavior. No extraneous words or repetition. It is dense but appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned. It lists the key components (earnings prints, EPS/revenue beat, price reaction, headline counts, metric line, next scheduled print) and covers the coverage-list behavior. It does not specify exact formatting or edge cases (e.g., what if ticker not covered), but for a simple read-only lookup tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema description covers 100% of the parameter, including the example tickers and the omission behavior. The description reinforces 'Call without a ticker' but adds little beyond that. Baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and the description does not introduce new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool provides 'Closelook's Print Record for a covered ticker' with specific components: last ~10 earnings prints, EPS/revenue beat-or-miss, 3-day price reaction, headline counts, metric line, and next scheduled print. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_price_history and get_signal_scores, which focus on different datasets. The verb 'get' and resource 'print record' are explicit and unambiguous.

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 usage guidance: 'Call without a ticker to see current coverage and the forward calendar.' This tells the agent how to invoke the tool in both modes. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the unique content (earnings print metrics) makes it clear when this tool is appropriate. A 5 would require explicit when-not-to-use guidance, which is absent.

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