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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), the description richly discloses behavior: snapshots are written only on cache-miss so gaps are meaningful, history depth is bounded by a 60-day TTL, and decay is computed from daily closes net of default slippage, not intraday. This adds substantial non-obvious 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 extremely dense and well-structured, with RESPONSE and LIMITS sections clearly delineated. The opening sentence immediately states the tool's core purpose, and every sentence adds information. It is slightly verbose in terms of length but justified by the complexity.

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?

For a complex telemetry tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it enumerates the output fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), explains each one's meaning, notes boundary cases (snapshot gaps, TTL, not intraday), and gives practical trading guidance. Nothing important is left unstated.

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%, but the description adds important semantics beyond the schema: it explains days default and clamp, the window snapshot family concept, and the meaning of the edge_pp_net time-series. It also clarifies that negative edge values indicate SELL YES, which is critical for interpreting the response.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots,' and clearly answers a concrete question ('how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on time-series persistence rather than raw edge snapshots.

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 strong contextual guidance: it explains the trading implication of edge age ('a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge are different trades') and details the response fields and limits, giving the agent clear clues about when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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