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

The description goes far beyond the annotations. It details response semantics (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), explains the sign convention of edge_pp_net (negative = SELL YES), the cache-miss snapshot gaps, the 60-day TTL limit, and that decay is computed from daily closes. This substantially enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior and data limitations.

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?

Though lengthy, the description is exceptionally well-organized: it leads with a clear purpose, then uses labeled sections (Args, RESPONSE, LIMITS) for parameters, response structure, and caveats. Every sentence carries valuable information, and the formatting makes it easy for an agent to parse.

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 tool's complexity (multi-snapshot time-series, trend classification, decay) and the lack of an output schema, the description does an outstanding job of explaining the full response contract: tracked[], expired[] with lifespan_days, snapshot_dates[], and all operational limits (TTL, daily closes, gaps). No crucial aspect is left unaddressed.

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% and the parameter descriptions in the schema are already informative. The description's Args section largely repeats the schema (e.g., days lookback default 14, max 30; window family default 1wk). It does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots.' It clearly answers the core question 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' It distinguishes itself from the sibling polymarket_edges by framing the edge's age and decay, not just its current value.

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: when you need to know edge persistence and decay. It explains the trade-relevance of age ('a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge are different trades'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose and relationship to polymarket_edges is strongly implied. The LIMITS section also adds practical usage constraints.

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