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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it details response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]), decay calculation (based on |edge_pp_net|, signed by direction), and limitations (60-day TTL, not intraday). This is highly transparent.

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 well-structured: it front-loads the core question, unpacks response fields, and ends with limitations. Every sentence adds value, and the length is justified given the complexity. No redundancy.

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 complexity (time-series, decay, expiration) and absence of an output schema, the description compensates by thoroughly explaining the response fields and limitations. It covers all necessary aspects for an agent to understand input, output, and caveats.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some context (e.g., days lookback clamp 2-30, window family options) but largely mirrors the schema. It provides additional context on when snapshots are written (cache-miss), but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond 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. Answers how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' It uses a specific verb ('answers'/'provides telemetry') and resource ('edge persistence/decay'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on time-series and decay rather than just 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 explicit context on when to use the tool, such as contrasting fresh wide edges with 3-week-old wide edges. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use the tool or name alternative tools. The usage context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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