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

The description provides extensive behavioral details: it uses daily snapshots, generates trend and decay metrics, explains limits such as 60-day TTL, and clarifies that decay numbers come from daily closes. These go beyond the annotations, which already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. No contradiction with 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?

The description is comprehensive yet well-structured. It begins with the core purpose, then explains parameters, then details the response format, and ends with limitations. No sentences are wasted; each adds necessary context.

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 absence of an output schema, the description fully compensates by detailing the response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and explaining each field. It also covers limitations and interpretation nuances. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 the description's contribution is limited. It restates default and max values, but also provides context that days is the lookback and window is the snapshot family. There is a minor mismatch: description says max 30, schema says clamp 2-30. Overall, the description adds some semantic context but does not significantly surpass 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 explicitly states the tool provides edge persistence and decay telemetry, answering how long an edge has existed and its decay trend. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'polymarket_edges' by focusing on time-series analysis rather than snapshot data.

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 frames the tool's purpose around a specific question: how long an edge has existed and if it's shrinking. This guides when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives, though the sibling name 'polymarket_edges' suggests that tool provides raw edges.

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