Run allowlisted market crawler

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose that only run status is returned and that the operation is a configured execution. However, it does not explain potential side effects, authorization requirements, or what 'supported' means, leaving the tool's impact underspecified.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the action and the key output limitation without wasted words. The structure is clean and easy 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?

The output schema presumably documents the run-status return, so that gap is covered, but the tool is under-specified for invocation: source values, date format, and the meaning of 'supported' are absent. Given a two-required-parameter tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description is not sufficient for correct 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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'source' parameter's allowed values or how it selects between crawler and FuturesIntelTool, nor does it specify the 'trade_date' format. The mention of 'one supported symbol and date' is confusing because the schema contains no symbol parameter.

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 identifies a clear action ('Run') and a resource ('configured native crawler or FuturesIntelTool refresh') scoped to a symbol and date, which distinguishes it from the sibling reporting/search tools. The 'or' between two run targets and the unexplained 'supported' qualifier keep it from being fully precise.

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 invoke this tool versus any sibling, and no alternative tools are named. The scope ('one supported symbol and date') implies a constrained use case, but the description never states prerequisites or exclusions.

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