Get Nostr event

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description is not required to repeat safety. It adds valuable context: signature verification and relay reporting, which go beyond annotations. No contradiction found.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose and key behaviors. No unnecessary words; it is front-loaded and easily parsed.

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 read-only fetch with two parameters, the description covers purpose, verification, and relay reporting. It lacks explicit mention of return format or error behavior, but annotations and schema (relay_urls description) fill most gaps. It is sufficiently complete for the tool's low complexity.

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 schema provides no description for 'event', but the tool description compensates by explaining accepted formats (hex ID, note, nevent). The 'relay_urls' parameter already has a schema description, and the description reinforces 'instead of identifier hints and configured defaults'. This coverage is adequate.

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 it fetches a single signature-verified Nostr event, specifying accepted ID formats (hex, note, nevent) and the relay reporting behavior. This distinguishes it from siblings like nostr_query_notes (multiple events) and nostr_get_profile (profile-specific).

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 implies usage for retrieving a single event by its identifier, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. The scope (one event vs. querying many) is evident, yet no explicit exclusions or alternatives are named.

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