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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns 'raw signed events,' which is useful, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, how it handles missing IDs, or any relay dependency beyond the schema. Additional context (e.g., that it fetches from Nostr relays) would improve transparency.

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 a single 7-word sentence with no redundant information. It is concise and front-loaded, containing only essential action and result.

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 two parameters and lack of annotations/output schema, the description provides the core function but lacks usage guidance, parameter details, and behavioral context. It is adequate but incomplete for optimal agent decision-making, especially compared to sibling tools.

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 50% (only the 'relays' parameter has a description in the schema). The description adds minimal context by mentioning 'by id,' implying the 'ids' parameter, but does not explain the required format (e.g., hex event IDs) or constraints. This partially compensates for the missing schema description but not fully.

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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource 'events by id'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like nostr_query_raw and nostr_profile, which serve different purposes (raw query vs fetching by known IDs).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nostr_query_raw or nostr_search_intents. The description does not mention when this is the appropriate choice, e.g., when you have specific event IDs.

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