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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as the 60-day snapshot TTL, the cache-miss behavior ('snapshots are written when polymarket_edges runs on a cache-miss'), and the distinction that decay numbers are based on daily closes, not intraday. It also explains the meaning of gaps in snapshot_dates. This is rich, non-obvious information that the annotations do not convey.

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 dense but well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then the response format, and finally limitations. It is longer than average, but every sentence adds important context given the tool's complexity and lack of an output schema. A slight trim could make it more concise, but the structure is effective.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description takes on the full burden of explaining the return values. It thoroughly describes the response fields (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]), their meanings, and the limitations (TTL, gaps, non-intraday decay). This makes the description complete for practical use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'days' and 'window' already described in the input schema. The description's mention of 'Args: days (lookback, default 14, max 30), window (snapshot family, default "1wk")' essentially restates the schema's information without adding new semantic value. No additional meaning is provided beyond what the schema already contains.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots.' It directly answers the 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 edge behavior.

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 on when to use the tool: 'a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge are different trades (the latter is wide for a reason nobody is willing to take).' This implies using the tool to check edge age and decay before trading. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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