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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that results are 'decoded, expiry-filtered, and sorted nearest-first when a point is given', which gives agents useful behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a search tool the disclosure is sufficient.

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?

At only two sentences, the description is extremely concise. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds key operational details (decoded, expiry-filtered, sorted). There is no wasted text, and the structure is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 9 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description covers the main filtering dimensions (side, topics, radius) and result processing (decoded, filtered, sorted). However, it omits mentions of other parameters like 'relaySideGeohash', 'includeExpired', 'limit', 'since', 'until', and 'relays', which could leave agents uncertain about their existence or relevance. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 78%, so the baseline is 3. The description provides a high-level summary ('Filter by side, category/area topic tags, and an optional geographic radius') but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. Each parameter is well-documented in the schema, so the description adds minimal value.

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 clearly states the tool searches 'Freeport ride/service/product intents (offers & requests)', which is a specific resource distinct from sibling tools like nostr_query_raw and nostr_search_reputation. The verb 'Search' and resource are unambiguous, and the mention of filtering by side, topics, and geographic radius further clarifies its scope.

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 implies usage for searching intents in Freeport, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like nostr_search_reputation or nostr_query_raw. It provides no guidance on when to use this tool over others, leaving the AI agent to infer from the name and context. A brief distinction from siblings would improve clarity.

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