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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the operation is a read, is free and public, returns latest metadata fields, and fallbacks to an empty profile if none exists. It does not cover error handling, relay behavior, or the meaning of an omitted npub, which prevents a 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?

The description is two short sentences with no fluff, front-loading the core purpose before adding cost and return behavior. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, public access, no-proof requirement, returned fields, and empty fallback. The only notable gap is the optional/npub default behavior, since the input schema marks it as not required.

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?

The description identifies the sole 'npub' parameter as the subject being read and lists the returned metadata fields, adding some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, schema coverage is 0% and the schema marks npub optional via default '', while the description never explains what happens when npub is omitted or empty.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read an npub's public Nostr profile (NIP-01 kind-0 metadata),' which clearly distinguishes it from the write-related sibling goodearth_publish_nostr_profile. It avoids tautology and tells an agent exactly what operation is performed.

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 gives clear context: 'Free, no proof — the data is already public on relays,' which tells the agent when this tool can be invoked without authentication. It implies a read-vs-write distinction from sibling publish_nostr_profile but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, 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.