nostr_get_profile

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

The description covers primary behavior: returns parsed JSON content, source event id, timestamp, and null if not found. It lacks explicit mention of read-only nature or error handling, but the 'fetch and parse' language implies a safe read operation. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and return, the second handles the null case. Structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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, one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers input format, relationship to sibling tools, return values (including specific fields), and the null case. No significant gaps remain.

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% with a clear parameter description. The tool description reinforces the parameter's purpose but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 explicitly states the action ('Fetch and parse a NOSTR profile') and the resource ('kind:0 metadata'). It distinguishes itself from the general nostr_query_events by labeling itself a convenience wrapper, making its specific purpose clear.

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 when you want a single profile by pubkey or npub, and contrasts with the more general nostr_query_events. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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