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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the server never holds the nsec, verifies the event signature against the npub, relays to public relays, and that authorization comes purely from the signature. It stops short of describing failure modes or relay selection, but the core behaviors are transparent.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The three sentences each add essential information: what it does, how the signed event is provided, and why the signature is sufficient. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: the publishing flow, the security model, and the authorization mechanism. It does not explain return values or error cases, but the output schema likely handles that, and the description is adequate for a straightforward publish action.

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 both npub and signed_event are already clearly described in the schema. The description adds context about the signature-checking relationship between them, but does not offer significant new parameter-level semantics beyond that.

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?

The description clearly states the tool publishes a client-signed kind-0 Nostr profile to relays for a given npub. It uses a specific verb ('publish') and resource ('kind-0 profile'), and the client-signed nature distinguishes it from other Nostr publishing tools like excalibur_post_nostr_message.

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 description explains the expected workflow: the frontend signs the kind-0 event and passes it here, with the server verifying the signature. It also clarifies the security constraint ('The wheel never holds a patron nsec'), implying this tool is for scenarios where key custody is avoided. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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