nostr_verify_nip05

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It explains the HTTP fetch, JSON lookup, verification logic, and relay hints. It does not mention failure modes or performance, but provides substantial transparency.

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?

Description is a single paragraph that covers key points without excess. It could be slightly more structured, but it remains concise and informative.

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?

No output schema, so description must hint at returns. It mentions verified flag, resolved pubkey, and relay hints, which is reasonably complete for a verification tool. Lacks explicit return structure.

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% with param descriptions. Description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the fetch URL and lookup process, providing context for how parameters are used.

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 verifies a NIP-05 identifier and resolves to a pubkey, using specific verb 'Verify' and resource 'NIP-05 identifier'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like nostr_get_profile by focusing on verification.

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 explains when to use the tool (to verify a NIP-05 identifier) and details behavior with and without expected_pubkey. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to siblings, but context is clear.

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