steward_audio_rest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it discloses the paid model ($0.01 USDC on Base), the 402 quote flow, verification criteria (scheme, network, token, payee), automatic settlement, spend-cap refusal behavior, and that the payer key stays local. It stops short of describing the return payload (e.g., what the audio lane actually returns) or error/repeat-call behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and routing guidance, then payment mechanics. It is a bit long, but every sentence covers material an agent needs given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 simple optional-param audio tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers selection, parameter default, and the full payment/verification lifecycle. Only the return-value shape is left unspecified, a minor gap given output schema is absent.

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 is already fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage (range 1-120, omission default). The description merely restates the same range and omit-default, adding no new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource and scope: a 'wind-down audio lane' of calm soundscapes for rest and recovery. It explicitly names the siblings it is NOT for (steward_audio_focus for deep work, steward_audio_match for mood-picked tracks), so an agent can disambiguate without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('sleep and relaxation') plus the conditions that route to alternatives, naming both sibling tools. Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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