Compare relays

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: busy relays return only newest events so samples aren't compared directly, failing relays are reported while others still compare, and '0 events' comes with the relay's stated reason. This is strong context beyond the annotations, though return shape details are not given.

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?

Front-loaded with the core comparison and the propagation value proposition, then supporting caveats. It is one dense paragraph and the em-dash aside is slightly rambling but every clause carries useful information.

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 and read-only annotations already covering safety, the description still explains what the agent will learn (share of events that reached each relay), how failures and zero counts are handled, and sampling caveats. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: the reference relay's events are what get looked for on the others, defaulting to the first configured relay, and the reference contributes at most 200 events to the propagation check. This clarifies the sampleLimit interaction beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb (compares) and resource (configured relays) and enumerates the dimensions compared: NIP-11 info, latency, activity, kinds, and propagation. This is clearly differentiated from siblings like relay_overview because it emphasizes the side-by-side propagation check across multiple relays.

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?

Describes the mechanics and defaults (first configured relay as reference) but never explicitly says when to pick this over relay_overview or nostrclaw_status, nor when not to use it. Usage is implied by the propagation emphasis rather than stated.

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