steward_fortune

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the cost ($0.01 USDC on Base), the 402 quote flow, what the server verifies (exact scheme, Base network, USDC, Steward payee), that it refuses quotes exceeding per-call or daily caps, and the privacy guarantee that the payer key never leaves the machine. It also states the output content (lucky number 1-99 plus a calm word) and that no third-party upstream is involved.

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?

The core purpose and the sibling routing are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and every subsequent sentence carries distinct load (session behavior, payment mechanics, privacy). The payment clause is dense and verges on long-winded, but no sentence is filler.

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 single-optional-param, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, output shape, session semantics, cost, payment verification, spend caps, and key custody. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to anticipate the paid-call flow.

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% for the single optional 'session' parameter, so the schema already documents its semantics. The description's line 'Pass a session id to avoid repeats within a session' restates the same behavior rather than adding syntax or format detail beyond it, which is the baseline-3 case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('One warm, original fortune — a lucky number (1-99) plus a calm word'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling by name ('Fortunes, not jokes: for humor use steward_joke instead'). An agent can select this over steward_joke without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it ('for humor use steward_joke instead'), and states the session-id usage pattern for avoiding repeats. Nothing about when to reach for this tool versus a sibling 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.