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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the auth mechanism ('NIP-98 POST with payload = sha256(markdown)'), which is real context beyond the schema, but omits mutation semantics: whether the upload overwrites existing text, permission requirements, and side effects are all unstated.

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?

A single efficient sentence, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the critical auth detail. No wasted words, though the density assumes prior NIP-98 knowledge.

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 4-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose and auth but leaves key gaps: what the returned response is, the relationship of 'id' to the upload, overwrite behavior, and required permissions.

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 only 50% (only auth and format have descriptions). The description compensates partially by explaining that auth is a NIP-98 POST tied to sha256(markdown), clarifying an otherwise cryptic required param. It says nothing about the 'id' (a 64-char hex hash) or 'format', so gaps remain.

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 (upload) and resource (markdown full text), so the core action is unambiguous. However it does not differentiate from siblings like submit_paper or publish_event, leaving the agent to infer the relationship.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: no prerequisites (e.g. does the paper/record need to exist first?), no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. The agent gets no routing help beyond the bare action.

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