report_relay_failure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It goes well beyond the surface: it explains that a report does not directly set rank, that it triggers an Oracle probe, that a false report costs one probe and changes nothing, and that no caller can demote a healthy relay. This is strong behavioral disclosure.

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 purpose and key caveats are front-loaded, and the sections are logically ordered. A few phrases are somewhat redundant — 'a relay that works needs no announcement' restates 'Report only failures' — but the description remains focused and useful.

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 tool with four params, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, safety, and failure semantics thoroughly. The output schema is stated to exist, so the lack of return-value detail is not a gap.

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%, and the parameter descriptions already define relay, reporter_npub, signed_event, and mode in detail, including the stateless no-challenge design. The tool description adds behavioral context but not much additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report that a relay in the DPYC set was unreachable, and re-rank it.' This clearly identifies the action and scope, and the added context distinguishes it from read-only or status tools like get_relays or service_status.

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 explicitly says 'Report only failures' and explains why successes should not be reported. It also clarifies in the param description and narrative that the relay must already be in the DPYC set, ruling out arbitrary-host probing. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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