steward_joke

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the cost ($0.01 USDC on Base), the 402 quoting/verification flow, exact scheme/network/payee checks, automatic settlement, spend-cap refusal behavior, and the guarantee that the payer key stays local. This is a rich, safety-relevant behavioral profile for a paid tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded ahead of the payment details, and every sentence is relevant for a paid tool. The payment clause is a long run-on, but its content (cost, network, caps) earns the space rather than padding.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter behavior, and the full payment lifecycle an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Only the routing against sibling content tools 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already explains the session id's repeat-avoidance semantics, which the description essentially restates. The only marginal addition is framing omission as a 'one-off' use case, which does not meaningfully exceed the schema.

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 ('One clean, original, family-friendly joke') and the source ('Synthetic Universe'), so an agent immediately knows this returns a joke. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent content siblings like steward_fortune or steward_sleep_tip, leaving the choice to inference.

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 clear guidance on the optional parameter ('pass a session id to avoid repeats; omit it for a one-off joke'), which is genuinely useful context. But it never says when to pick this tool over sibling content tools (fortune, sleep_tip, wiki), so usage is only implied.

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