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

Annotations already declare the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely useful context the annotations do not: the origin of the data (configured NIP-51 kind 30000 follow sets) and the concrete fields returned (names, pubkeys, NIP-05 identifiers). It does not discuss staleness or what an empty list means.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: what it lists and where from, what it returns, and how to use the result. Purpose is front-loaded, no filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the downstream usage pattern, which is what an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around empty/degraded results and refresh behavior, but it is sufficient to invoke correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The mention of authors: [...] refers to search_resources' parameter, not this tool's inputs, so it does not mislead.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List known educational resource authors') plus the data source ('loaded from configured follow sets (NIP-51 kind 30000)'), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_calendar_authors and resolve_author. An agent can identify this as the local-curated author list without opening anything else.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent forward: 'Use the returned pubkeys with search_resources(authors: [...]) to filter resources by author.' This gives clear downstream context, but it does not say when NOT to use it or why an agent would pick it over resolve_author or list_calendar_authors when looking for an author.

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