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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: history depth limited by 60-day TTL, snapshots written on cache-miss creating gaps, decay from daily closes not intraday, and the meaning of expired opportunities. 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 long but well-structured with clear sections (Args, RESPONSE, LIMITS). Each sentence carries useful information, and the organization aids readability, though it is denser than strictly necessary.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully discloses the response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) and all major limitations (TTL, snapshot gaps, daily closes). It provides enough detail for an agent to understand what the tool returns and how to interpret it.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (days and window) with defaults and clamps. The description merely repeats these defaults and adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry' and answers a specific question: 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on persistence/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 clear context for when to use the tool (e.g., comparing a fresh wide edge vs a 3-week-old wide edge) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It implies usage for historical edge analysis but lacks explicit exclusions.

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