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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that the operation is paid and that the signed Nostr event is only produced when NOSTR_NSEC is configured. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, though it does not elaborate on cost details or what happens without the environment variable.

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 description consists of two succinct sentences that state the purpose, the paid nature, and the output format. There is no wasted wording, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete but misses some details. It does not specify the expected return structure beyond 'redacted hashes and a signed Nostr event', nor does it mention what the cost is or whether the operation has side effects besides charging. More detail on the proof format or verification linkage would be helpful.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (agent_id as optional caller, action_id as the execution audit action to prove). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already covers, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides paid verifiable proof for an audited execution action and returns redacted hashes and a signed Nostr event. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like verify_proof by focusing on generation rather than verification, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'attests'.

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?

Usage is implied: you would call this after an execution action has been audited, to obtain proof. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., verify_proof), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions beyond the NOSTR_NSEC configuration condition.

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