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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: it explains the data source (daily snapshots), limits (60-day TTL, no intraday data), and response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates with field meanings). No contradiction with annotations that indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior.

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 long but well-structured, with clear sections for purpose, args, response, and limits. It is informative without being overly verbose, though some sentences could be shortened without losing meaning.

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 the lack of an output schema and the tool's complexity (time-series, decay analysis, multiple response arrays), the description thoroughly explains the response format, field meanings, and limitations. It enables an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description restates them with defaults and adds context (e.g., window as 'snapshot family' and days clamp), but this adds marginal value over the schema. Baseline 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 title 'Edge Tracker' and description clearly state the tool's purpose: tracking edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. It answers the specific question 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?', distinguishing it from a simple edge list by focusing on time-series and decay.

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 usage context by contrasting fresh vs. old edges ('a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge are different trades'), implying when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like 'polymarket_edges' or other siblings.

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