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

Discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations: 60-day snapshot TTL, history starts from when snapshotting was enabled, snapshots written only on cache-miss causing gaps, decay computed from daily closes (not intraday), and signed edge values. Rich in operational context and fully consistent with the read-only, idempotent 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?

Despite length, the description is highly structured with labeled sections (Args, RESPONSE, LIMITS) and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds specific technical or conceptual value, with no fluff or repetition. The density is justified by the tool's complexity and absence of an output schema.

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 compensates by detailing the response structure: tracked[] with time-series, first_seen, trend categories, decay_pp_per_day, expired[] with lifespan_days, and snapshot_dates[] with gap semantics. It also explains limits and the meaning of signed values, making the tool self-contained and unambiguous.

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 covers both parameters with defaults, clamps, and enum values (100% coverage). The description restates them (days lookback default 14 max 30; window default '1wk') but adds only minor contextual framing (snapshot family), not new semantic depth. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots.' It directly answers a concrete question ('how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?') and distinguishes itself from the sibling polymarket_edges by focusing on persistence/decay rather than 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when edge age or decay matters, giving the example that a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge are different trades. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the purpose statement implies it complements rather than replaces current-edge tools.

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