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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the key-custody model ('never holds a patron nsec'), the authorization model ('the signature is the authorization — no proof token'), the server-side verification step (signature must match the npub), and the cost ('Free'). These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking a publish/signing tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then a compact paragraph explaining the signing/verification flow. Every sentence carries information, though the prose is slightly denser than strictly necessary.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Given a no-annotation, free, signature-verified publish tool, the description covers the auth model, custody, verification, and cost — nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both npub and signed_event. The description reinforces their meaning (client-signed event must be signed by the npub) but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb (Publish) + resource (CLIENT-SIGNED kind-0 profile) + target (relays for an npub). It is clearly distinguishable from the read-side sibling beesknees_get_nostr_profile without opening either schema.

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?

It explains the calling context precisely: the frontend signs the kind-0 event with a session key or NIP-07 extension and passes the signed JSON here, while the wheel only verifies and relays. It does not explicitly name the alternative (get_nostr_profile) or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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