steward_wiki

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 paid nature ($0.01 USDC on Base per call), the 402 quote flow, verification checks (scheme, network, token, payee), spend-cap refusal behavior, and the security guarantee that the payer key never leaves the machine. It stops short of stating the return format or confirming the operation is non-destructive.

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 the purpose before payment details, and most sentences earn their place given this is a paid tool. The payment paragraph is dense but relevant; the product-vs-catalog aside is slightly tangential yet functional as disambiguation.

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-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter handling, cost, and payment mechanics thoroughly. The main remaining gap is that it never sketches the shape of the returned summary.

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 100% for the single 'topic' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by instructing 'Pass the article title as-is; the rail resolves it,' clarifying that no normalization or disambiguation is expected from the caller.

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 — 'Concise summary of a Wikipedia article' — and frames the scope ('quick research context for agents'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from one sibling (steward_catalog for buying Brian Booms products), so an agent can route correctly without opening the 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?

Gives a clear context ('quick research context for agents') and names a specific alternative with its own domain (steward_catalog for product purchases). It does not cover when-not-to-use relative to the other research-adjacent siblings, but the primary routing guidance is present.

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