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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful workflow context (user review step, no sign/publish) beyond annotations, but says nothing about validation failure behavior or what binding means.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the boundary, then the user-facing instruction. No waste, though the third sentence is more instruction than description.

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 1-param, no-output-schema tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers the workflow role adequately. Missing: what 'bind' means concretely, what happens on validation failure, and no mention of the prepare_note sibling in the same prepare family.

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 0% and the single param is a nested object with 4 required subfields and additionalProperties=false, but the schema itself documents structure and constraints (kind range, array limits, content max length) via JSON Schema. Description adds no param guidance, so baseline 3 applies since structure is machine-readable.

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 (validate/bind) and resource (exact unsigned Nostr event) for user review. Distinguishes itself from sign_event and publish_event by naming both boundaries, though it doesn't explicitly name the prepare_note sibling it complements.

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?

Clear about when to use: before requesting a signature. Explicitly excludes signing and publishing, routing the agent to sign_event/publish_event for those steps. No exclusion for prepare_note alternatives, but the workflow ordering is clear.

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