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

The description richly discloses behavioral details beyond the annotations: the 60-day snapshot TTL, that snapshot gaps mean no scan occurred, that decay is computed on daily closes not intraday, and the response structure with has semantics for tracked/expired/snapshot_dates. Annotations already indicate read-only/idempotent, and the description adds significant context without contradicting them.

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 long but every sentence is dense with meaningful information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then structured into Args, RESPONSE, and LIMITS sections. No wasted words; the length is justified by the lack of an output schema and the need to explain nuanced response semantics.

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 output schema and only 2 parameters, yet the description fully explains the response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) with field-level detail, including signed edge_pp_net and median lifespan as a 'competition clock'. It also covers edge cases such as snapshot gaps, TTL limits, and computation methodology. This is exceptionally complete for the given complexity.

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 covers 100% of parameter descriptions, giving baseline 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that 'days' is a lookback with default 14 and max 30 (schema also mentions clamp 2-30), and that 'window' is a 'snapshot family' with examples 24hr/1wk/1mo. This adds useful nuance, pushing above baseline.

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's purpose: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots' and answers a specific question: 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from a current-edge view by contrasting fresh vs. old wide edges. This is a specific verb+resource+scope, differentiated from sibling tools like polymarket_edges.

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 provides clear usage context: it is for assessing edge persistence/decay, with the contrast 'a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge are different trades' implying when to use it instead of a current-edge tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use X instead', so it falls short of full explicit when/when-not guidance.

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