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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully explains that the wheel never holds the patron nsec, verifies the signature against the npub, relays to public relays, and treats the signature as the sole authorization. It does not cover failure modes or retry behavior, but it gives substantial safety-relevant context.

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 front-loaded with the essential purpose in the first sentence. The second paragraph adds valuable security and authorization context, though phrases like 'Free' and the slightly conversational tone could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides the key context an agent needs: what is published, who signs it, how authorization works, and that no key custody is involved. It does not explicitly state that both parameters are effectively required, but the described flow implies that, and the output schema covers return expectations.

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%, and the schema already describes npub and signed_event accurately. The tool description reinforces the 'client-signed' and 'JSON' nature of signed_event but adds little semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Publish a CLIENT-SIGNED kind-0 profile to relays for an npub.' This clearly distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like roastify_get_nostr_profile and other publishing/credential tools. The wording leaves no doubt about the tool's core function.

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 usage context by explaining that the frontend signs the kind-0 event and passes it here, and the wheel verifies and relays it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, but the client-signed flow makes the intended invocation scenario unmistakable.

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