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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: the key never leaves the caller (client-side signing, no key submission) and batch ordering is preserved/prescribed. It also points to an authoritative contract spec. It stops short of describing validation failure behavior, whether accepted events are idempotent, or any rate limits.

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 with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the security note and the cardinality note. Every clause carries information: action, crypto contract, spec URL, key-handling guarantee, batch semantics.

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 submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the signing/security model, the batch-ordering semantics, and a pointer to the full contract. The main remaining gap is what happens to malformed or rejected events, which matters for a submit endpoint.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the nested event object's seven required fields (id, pubkey, created_at, kind, tags, content, sig) are undocumented everywhere. The description compensates partially by naming the signing scheme and linking the contract spec, which is the field-format authority, but it adds no field-level meaning itself.

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 ('Post events you signed yourself') and qualifies the payload shape as Nostr-style BIP-340 Schnorr events, plus 'one event or an ordered batch'. This is clearly distinct from read-side siblings like ronin_scan or ronin_index, though it does not explicitly name any sibling to differentiate further.

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?

The phrase 'events you signed yourself' implies the precondition that the caller already holds the signing key and has produced a valid sig, and 'one event or an ordered batch' hints at batching. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no mention of prerequisites like registration or key setup, and no note on retry/idempotency behavior.

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