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

Annotations only cover safety (read-only, idempotent). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it explains the underlying mechanism (kind-0 index / NIP-50 search), that results are multiple candidates ranked by relevance, that coverage is limited to authors who published here, and that a wrong pick yields empty results rather than an error.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the workflow, then the caveats. It is long and the community-pubkey discussion is somewhat digressive, but each part carries real routing value, so it mostly earns its length.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description tells the agent what comes back (ranked candidate pubkeys) and how to use them, plus the coverage limitation and the empty-result failure mode. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% and both params are self-documented, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the semantics of `name` (name-driven disambiguation, org or person) but says nothing extra about `limit` beyond 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Resolve an org or person NAME to candidate pubkeys') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings list_known_authors and search_content. An agent can tell exactly what it does and what it feeds into.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow (resolve_author → pick candidate → search_content({authors:[pubkey]})), names the alternative it differs from (list_known_authors), and states the key when-NOT case: it does not resolve a community's kind-10222 pubkey. This is about as complete as usage guidance gets.

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