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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only, idempotent operation, but the description adds critical behavioral context: 60-day snapshot TTL, cache-miss-based snapshot creation, daily-closing basis for decay numbers, and interpretation of gaps. 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?

Though long, the description is well-structured with Args, RESPONSE, and LIMITS sections, and every sentence provides essential detail. Purpose is front-loaded, making it easy to parse despite the 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 the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return format (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) with field-level meanings, caveats, and data provenance. It also covers limitations like TTL and gaps, making it complete for reliable invocation.

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 covers both parameters fully, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance by defining 'lookback', 'snapshot family', and default/max values, plus clarifying the available window options. It enriches the schema without redundancy.

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?

Clearly states it provides edge persistence and decay telemetry, answering 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' Distinguishes from sibling polymarket_edges by focusing on historical tracking rather than current edge values.

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?

Provides clear context for use (evaluating edge age and trajectory) and hints at when it applies via the distinction between fresh and old edges. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the comparative guidance implied rather than explicit.

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