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

Annotations are missing, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral traits: signature verification before relaying, no key custody, signature-as-authorization, and no cost. The side effect of relaying to public relays is explicit. It does not describe error handling or failure validation, but enough behavioral context is provided for an agent to understand what happens.

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 but complete: one front-loaded purpose sentence followed by four short sentences that add essential security and usage context. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no repetition or filler. The structure is easy to parse and appropriately sized for a security-sensitive publish operation.

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 complexity and lack of annotations, the description covers the critical prerequisites, side effects, security model, and cost. The output schema exists, so return-value details need not be in the description. Minor gaps remain such as explicit verification-failure behavior and relay specifics, but overall the description is sufficiently complete 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning beyond the schema by explaining how the signed_event is produced (frontend signs with session key or NIP-07) and that the npub is used for signature verification. This helps the agent understand the relationship between the two parameters, though per-parameter semantics are still mostly in the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific action and resource: 'Publish a CLIENT-SIGNED kind-0 profile to relays for an npub.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like authority_get_nostr_profile by stating the exact operation, target event type, and destination. The purpose is immediate and unambiguous.

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: the frontend must produce a signed kind-0 event and pass it here, because the wheel never holds a patron nsec. It implies this is the tool for client-signed publishing but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. This is useful context, though not a full when/when-not guide.

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