getLongFormNotes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions the note kind (30023) but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, how it handles missing data, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return format looks like. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with zero wasted words. Every element ('Get long-form notes', 'kind 30023', 'by public key') contributes essential information, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

For a query tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'long-form notes' are beyond the kind number, doesn't describe the return format or structure, and provides no context about error handling or typical use cases. The technical detail about note kind is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and output information.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (pubkey, limit, relays). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, such as format details or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('long-form notes') with specific filtering criteria ('by public key') and technical detail ('kind 30023'). It distinguishes from siblings like getKind1Notes (different note kind) and getProfile (different resource type), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for retrieving long-form notes from a specific user, but doesn't mention when to choose this over other note-fetching tools like getKind1Notes or search functions, nor does it discuss prerequisites or exclusions.

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