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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the trust boundary explicitly ('KlickyMart never generates, holds or sees seeds, funds, NWC secrets or Cashu tokens') and flags that mint risk is discussed. It stops short of stating outright that the tool performs no side effects and returns static informational content, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its scope, then closed with the custody guarantee. The parenthetical backend list is dense but each entry earns its place by helping an agent recognize their intended setup path.

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 zero-param informational tool with no output schema, the description covers topic scope, audience, and safety posture. It doesn't say what the return shape is (single document vs. sections) or whether the content is static vs. live, but nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. Nothing in the description needs to explain inputs, and none are implied.

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 resource ('Non-custodial wallet setup guide for agents') and enumerates the covered topics — Nostr key, Lightning backends (NWC, Alby Hub, phoenixd, LNbits), lud16 tips, Cashu mint risk, checklist. This clearly separates it from the transactional siblings like find_offers or get_checkout_map. It lacks an explicit verb, but as a static guide tool that is a minor gap.

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: an agent needs this when setting up a wallet to receive tips or pay, since the description mentions lud16 for tips. However, it never states when to use this versus other tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The inference is reasonable but left to the agent.

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