nostr_read_feed

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the important fact that no wallet is required, which is real context, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or what happens when a relay is unreachable or returns nothing.

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 first two sentences are efficient and front-loaded. The trailing 'Tip' about earning_opportunities is unrelated to reading a Nostr feed and consumes space without helping the agent call this tool.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, filtering, and authorization context. The main remaining gap is what shape the returned notes take, but that is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so limit, relay, and pubkey are already documented in the schema. The description's only reference is the pubkey filter, which the schema already covers in more detail; no added semantics beyond the baseline.

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 (Read) and a precise resource (recent kind:1 notes from Nostr relays), plus the optional pubkey filter. The kind:1 and relay framing distinguishes it implicitly from nostr_search_tags and nostr_get_profile, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

It tells the agent the feed can be narrowed by author pubkey, which is a usable invocation hint. But there is no when-to-use / when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives like nostr_search_tags for tag-based discovery; the second paragraph is a promotional pointer, not usage guidance.

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