getProfile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this is a local lookup, network query, or cached retrieval. It doesn't mention performance characteristics, error conditions, authentication requirements, or what happens when a profile doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information ('Get a Nostr profile') and includes the key constraint ('by public key'). Every word earns its place, making this an excellent example of conciseness.

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 simple retrieval tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description doesn't address what the return value contains (profile fields, format, structure) or potential behavioral aspects. Given the tool's relative simplicity, the description meets basic requirements but leaves room for improvement in explaining results and operational context.

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 already fully documents both parameters (pubkey and relays). The description mentions 'by public key' which aligns with the pubkey parameter but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding but doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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 ('a Nostr profile by public key'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'createProfile' or 'updateProfile', but the verb 'Get' versus 'create'/'update' provides implicit distinction. The description is specific enough to understand what the tool does without being tautological.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'createProfile', 'updateProfile', and various note/zap retrieval tools, there's no indication of when this profile retrieval tool is appropriate versus other profile-related operations or when to use it in combination with other tools. The description is purely functional without contextual usage information.

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