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

The description discloses behavioral details beyond annotations: it explains the output structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]), the decay computation method, sign conventions, and limitations like snapshot gaps and TTL. Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) are fully consistent with the description.

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 a single paragraph of dense, information-rich sentences. It efficiently conveys purpose, output structure, and limitations. While clear, it could benefit from bullet points or section breaks for easier parsing.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) with their subfields and meanings. It also covers computational details and limitations. The tool is well-documented for a simple two-parameter function.

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 input schema covers both parameters (days, window) with descriptions. The tool description adds context: default values, allowed ranges, and examples for window family values. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema, especially for window which lists possible values not in the 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.' It answers the specific question 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' This purpose is distinct from sibling tools like polymarket_edges, which likely provides 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 implies when to use the tool by contrasting a fresh wide edge with a 3-week-old wide edge, indicating this tool is for assessing edge maturity. It also mentions limits such as the 60-day TTL and snapshot start date. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools for other contexts.

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