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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses the subjective nature of scores and the requirement for both receipt halves for proven-deal count. However, it does not explain how karma ratings are aggregated or mention any side effects or dependencies.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The main action is front-loaded, and the important caveat is succinctly placed at the end. Every word contributes value.

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 description omits details on output format (no schema provided), pagination via 'limit', and relay selection behavior. It explains the core data but lacks completeness for a tool with no output schema and 3 parameters.

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?

The input schema covers 2 of 3 parameters with descriptions (pubkey, relays). The description adds no extra meaning for these parameters and does not clarify the undocumented 'limit' parameter (e.g., pagination behavior). It fails to compensate for the 67% schema coverage.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'reputation signals for a pubkey', specifying the relevant event kinds (32103 and 32104) and the outputs (proven-deal count, karma summary). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like nostr_search_intents by focusing on reputation data.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nostr_search_intents or nostr_query_raw. The only additional note is a caution about subjectivity, but no comparative context or preconditions are provided.

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