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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'timestamped, deterministic', 'newest first, each with headline, excerpt and body', and 'Mon-Fri live; fully automated surface (disclosed as such)'. Since annotations already carry read-only/safety information, this go-between effort is sufficient and adds useful expectations.

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 dense and front-loaded, leading with 'Tape' and 'timestamped, deterministic market cards', then a compact list of card types. Every phrase carries useful information, and the assertion that it mirrors a public webpage is action-relevant.

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 covers return shape enough: each card has a headline, excerpt, and body, and they are presented newest first. It also explains availability (Mon-Fri) and automation. It could more explicitly address offline behavior or weekend behavior, but overall the context is strong for a 3-parameter read-only tool.

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 already covers all three parameters at 100%, so the description does not need to enumerate them. It does loosely mirror the type/window values via the card-category list, but it adds no explicit parameter examples or value mappings. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 names a specific resource and verb ('Closelook's Tape') and enumerates distinctive content categories: session wraps, macro prints, earnings reactions, outliers, PEAD signals, and weekly recaps. It explicitly mirrors closelook.net/tape/, making its purpose unmistakable and differentiating it from sibling tools like get_wire or get_latest_view.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to retrieve the latest timestamped market cards from the Tape. It also adds cadence ('Mon–Fri live; fully automated surface') which helps an agent know the tool's temporal relevance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide 'use X instead' guidance, so it falls just short of a 5.

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