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

Beyond the safe read-only hints already present in annotations, the description adds useful behavioral detail: newest-first ordering, per-day archives, mirrored URLs, and refresh cadence several times per trading day. This helps the agent understand currency and scope without overclaiming.

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 moderately sized but every sentence adds value: it introduces the two modes, explains each mode's content, provides source URLs, and mentions refresh behavior. It is well organized and front-loads the central wire concept.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description conveys the return content in enough detail: rows, ordering, extras like house read and consensus comparisons, the forward calendar, and archive access. An agent has sufficient information to select and invoke it successfully.

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?

Both schema descriptions are already complete, and the tool description adds meaningful semantics for the wire parameter by explaining exactly what each enum value returns. Limit and ticker are already well covered by the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 (the two Closelook wires), assigns concrete meanings to each wire value, and distinguishes the two modes. It goes well beyond the tool name and title, so an agent knows exactly what this tool returns.

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 clear use context: wire=analyst returns sell-side calls and wire=earnings returns earnings prints, both newest-first. It does not name sibling tools that might overlap, but the wire/value explanation is strong enough to guide selection.

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