Query Nostr notes

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint, readOnlyHint, etc., but the description adds the important behavioral detail that results are 'signature-verified', which is not in annotations. It also mentions 'bounded' filters, implying limits. This adds value beyond the structured fields, though it doesn't cover pagination or relay 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?

The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds key context (signature-verified) without fluff. Every word contributes value, and it is easy to scan.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain how filters combine (AND/OR), output ordering, pagination, default limit, or what 'signature-verified' entails operationally (e.g., rejection of unverified events). The description fails to provide enough operational detail for an agent to correctly invoke the tool with proper parameter values and expectations.

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 only 13% (only relay_urls has a description). The description lists filter categories (author, time, text-search, event-reference, pubkey-mention) that map to several parameters, giving high-level meaning. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., pubkey hex, UNIX timestamps) or constraints like limit defaults. It partially compensates for low schema coverage but leaves 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 it queries 'signature-verified kind 1 notes' with specific filter types, which is a precise verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like nostr_get_event (single event) and nostr_resolve_identity (identity resolution) by focusing on filtered queries over kind 1 notes.

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 querying/filtering notes, and the filter list makes it clear this is the go-to tool for searching notes. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the sibling tools naturally cover other cases (single event, profiles, relays).

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