steward_sleep_tip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the price ($0.01 USDC on Base), the 402 quote flow, that the server verifies scheme/network/token/payee, that it settles from the wallet automatically, that it refuses quotes exceeding per-call or daily caps, and that the payer key stays local. This is rich behavioral and safety context beyond any structured field.

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, then index behavior, then payment details — a sensible ordering. The payment paragraph is long but earns its place given the absence of annotations and the tool's paid nature; no sentence is pure 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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter behavior, payment mechanics, and spend-cap safety. Return shape is not described, but the tool is trivially simple, so this is nearly complete.

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 documents the index with the same omit-for-today wording and 0-11 bounds, so the description's restatement adds little. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the single 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?

States a specific verb+resource: it returns 'One genuine sleep-hygiene tip from Brian Booms' rotating collection of 12,' with a scoping note ('never medical claims'). It is clearly distinguishable from content siblings like steward_joke or steward_fortune by resource, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

It explains the index mechanic (omit for today's rotating tip, pass 0-11 for a specific one), which is a usage instruction, but offers no guidance on when to prefer this over other steward_* content tools or any exclusions. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than stated.

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