Author report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that by scoping the result to 'this relay' and by explicitly warning that 'first/last' mean the oldest/newest events the relay returned, not account age. It stops short of describing merge behavior when several relays are supplied, which the schema hints at.

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, front-loaded with what the report contains, followed by the single most confusable return-value caveat. The escaped-quote clause is slightly awkward to read but it carries unique information rather than filler.

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 no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does name the report's major sections (profile, follow count, relay list, recent events) plus one interpretive caveat. Missing pieces such as pagination or the multi-relay merge output shape are minor for a read-only report tool.

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%, so the limit/relay/relays/pubkey semantics are already fully documented, including the relay-override rule and merge behavior. The description adds only indirect cues ('on this relay', the 'first/last' caveat) and says nothing about limit or the multi-relay merge, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 act ('looks at one public key') and enumerates exactly what the report contains: kind-0 profile, follow count, relay list, and recent events. It is clearly per-author rather than relay-wide, so the agent can place it against relay_overview or recent_events, though the link to activity_report is framed as similarity ('same analysis as') rather than as a distinction.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only routing hint is the passing reference to activity_report and the phrase 'on this relay', which implies scope but does not tell the agent which of the twelve siblings to pick for a given question.

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