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

Even with readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: tracked[] and expired[] categories, derived trend/decay fields, snapshot gaps caused by cache-misses, signed edge_pp_net values, and the 60-day TTL limit. No contradiction 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 long but every paragraph earns its place: purpose, parameter recap, response contract, and data caveats. It is front-loaded with the core question and structured via ALL-CAPS labels ('RESPONSE', 'LIMITS'), making it scannable despite density.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description fully enumerates the response format, explains edge cases like expired opportunities and missing snapshot dates, and documents limitations of TTL and daily-close decay. The agent can invoke the tool confidently without additional documentation.

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 days and window are fully described in the schema with defaults and allowed values; the description largely restates these (lookback, default 14/max 30, snapshot family). It adds no extra semantics or format details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots' and poses the exact question it answers, making the verb/resource relationship explicit. By contrasting fresh vs old wide edges, it also differentiates from the sibling polymarket_edges tool that surfaces current 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?

It provides clear context for when the tool is relevant—whenever edge age/decay matters rather than the current snapshot—and links to the underlying polymarket_edges snapshot pipeline. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full prescriptive guidance.

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