Event locations

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive). The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the 20-id cap and, importantly, that only kind and age are returned, not content — valuable given there is no output schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, then the return scope, then the use case. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 carries the burden of conveying return shape and does so at a high level (per-relay presence, kind, age). It omits output formatting details and behavior when fewer than two configured relays exist, which is a minor gap for a read-only lookup 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (ids, relays) are fully documented in the schema, including hex/note1 formats, the max of 20, wss:// relays, minimum of 2, and the default. The description largely restates the 20-id limit and 'configured relays' constraint rather than adding syntax the schema lacks.

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 verb and resource: for up to 20 event ids, report which configured relays hold each one. The output content ('kind and age only, not the content') makes the purpose unmistakable and separates it from relay_overview and compare_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?

Gives the two concrete decision contexts: checking whether a note spread to other relays, and whether a relay dropped something. However, it names no explicit alternative or exclusion (e.g., when to use compare_relays or relay_overview instead).

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