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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and handles it well. It states that the wheel never holds a patron nsec, verifies the signature against the npub, relays to public relays, uses the signature as authorization, and is free. It does not detail failure behavior for mismatched signatures, but the key security and side-effect traits are clearly disclosed.

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 core purpose and then provides a compact but informative security and workflow explanation. Every sentence contributes meaning, though the point about signature authorization is slightly redundant with the earlier 'never holds a patron nsec' statement, preventing a perfect score.

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?

The tool's complexity is moderate, and the description covers the essential workflow, security model, and side effects. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required here. A small gap is that the parameters are semantically required but marked with defaults and not formally required, which the description could have clarified, but overall the definition is adequate for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the relationship between npub and signed_event by explaining that the wheel verifies the signature matches the npub, but the core meanings of both parameters are already fully covered by the schema's own descriptions.

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 the tool from siblings like taxsort_get_nostr_profile by focusing on publication rather than retrieval, and it makes the object (kind-0 metadata event) and destination (relays) explicit.

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 for when to use the tool: after the frontend has signed a kind-0 event with a session key or NIP-07 extension, the signed event should be passed here. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the workflow described is sufficient for an agent to recognize the intended invocation path.

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