check_triggers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the mutation side effects: triggers can fire, and paper fills occur bounded by their caps. It also discloses the return shape (one report per trigger) but says nothing about permissions, idempotency, or rate limits for repeated polling.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and consequence, followed by the operating context and return shape. No filler or restatement of the name.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what runs, what side effects occur, and the rough return cardinality. It would be stronger if it described what a report contains, since no output schema exists to carry that.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema documents that cleanly, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context that the whole armed-trigger set is evaluated, which is the effective scope of the call.

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?

States a specific action (poll every armed trigger against live prices) and its consequence (fire tripped ones with paper fills within caps). This is clearly distinct from the sibling trigger tools set_trigger, list_triggers, and cancel_trigger, which create, enumerate, and remove triggers rather than evaluate them.

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?

Explicitly explains that this normally runs on a cron and that the tool exists so agents and tests can drive the evaluation directly, which tells an agent exactly when to reach for it. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., avoiding redundant calls after a scheduled run).

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