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

Even though annotations already declare read-only and idempotent hints, the description adds substantial behavioral context: snapshot TTL limits, cache-miss writing behavior, gaps in snapshot_dates meaning no scan, decay computed from daily closes not intraday, and the signed interpretation of edge_pp_net. This goes far beyond what annotations provide.

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 efficiently organized with clear sections (Args, RESPONSE, LIMITS). Every sentence adds essential information, and the opening sentence front-loads the core purpose. There is no wasted verbiage; the structure earns its length for such a complex tool.

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 fully explains the response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), field meanings, and limitations. It covers the tool's complexity thoroughly, including trend values, decay calculation, and TTL constraints, leaving no major gaps for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 already documents both parameters with defaults and allowed values (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond repeating the defaults and calling 'window' a 'snapshot family'. The description does provide context on how window maps to polymarket_edges, but this is minor additional value over the schema.

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 snapshots, answering 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on temporal tracking rather than just current edges, explicitly contrasting fresh vs. old 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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (to understand edge persistence/decay) and even mentions 'the median lifespan is your competition clock', implying a competitive analysis use case. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls 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.