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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It says the tool 'runs' a trigger and returns a decision, but does not clarify whether this mutates state, places orders, requires prerequisites, or is a read-only evaluation.

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?

One sentence with no filler. The arrow-separated trigger chain compactly communicates the execution order, and the return value is stated succinctly.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify what the returned decision looks like, and without annotations it should clarify side effects. It does neither, leaving an agent to guess at the decision format and any consequential behavior.

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 single parameter 'agent' is already fully described in the schema as 'Agent id or name substring' at 100% coverage. The description only reinforces that the trigger belongs to an agent without adding new semantic detail, 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 names a specific action ('Run') and resource ('the agent's selected trigger'), and specifies a trigger chain (interval → news → trading signal) before returning a decision. This is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like agent_chat or agent_decisions.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as agent_decisions, get_news, or get_basis_signal. The intended context is only vaguely implied by the trigger-chain phrase, with no exclusions or decision criteria.

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