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

The description goes far beyond the annotations, disclosing the response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), trend taxonomy (new | widening | stable | decaying), decay computation semantics (on |edge_pp_net|, signed by trade direction), snapshot TTL of 60 days, data gaps due to cache-miss behavior, and the fact that decay uses daily closes rather than intraday. This is rich behavioral context.

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 fully structured with sections (Args, RESPONSE, LIMITS) and every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core question and uses formatting (brackets, arrows) for clarity. Nothing is wasted.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully specifies the response fields and their meanings, including edge_pp_net time-series, first_seen, trend, decay_pp_per_day, expired opportunities with lifespan_days, and snapshot_dates. It also explains limitations like TTL and data gaps. This is essentially a self-contained contract.

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 for both parameters is 100%, including defaults and clamps, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the parameter info ('days (lookback, default 14, max 30), window (snapshot family, default "1wk")') but adds only marginal context by tying them to snapshot families and lookback in the response explanation. No significant value beyond 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 polymarket_edges snapshots' and answers the specific question 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on historical persistence 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 usage context by explaining when this tool is valuable ('a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge are different trades'), implying it should be used when edge age/decay matters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context strongly signals appropriate use cases.

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