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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a read, that it returns the latest metadata fields with a specific list, and that an empty profile is returned when none is published. It also states the data is publicly available, implying no side effects. It doesn't mention rate limits or relay details, but is otherwise 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 two sentences with no filler, front-loading the core purpose and then adding context and return details. Every clause contributes information.

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-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the input semantics, behavioral guarantees, return values, and edge case (empty profile). It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without additional information.

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 schema provides no description for the npub parameter (0% coverage), and the description compensates by indicating the npub is the identifier whose profile is read. However, it does not explain npub format, validation, or the meaning of the default empty string, leaving some ambiguity for an agent unfamiliar with Nostr.

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 opens with the verb 'Read' and the specific resource 'an npub's public Nostr profile', and specifies NIP-01 kind-0 metadata, making the operation unambiguous. It inherently distinguishes itself from the sibling write tool publish_nostr_profile by being a read operation.

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 states 'Free, no proof — the data is already public on relays,' which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate (any time a public profile is needed) and that no authentication is required. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear.

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