Relay overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: that statistics are only present 'when the relay publishes them', so the agent knows that section can legitimately be absent rather than a failure. It does not discuss latency thresholds or error shapes, keeping it at a 4.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the framing ('First look at a relay') and then lists outputs in priority order. The parenthetical enumerations are dense but each item is informative; only the nested parentheses make it slightly heavy to parse.

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 return-value burden and discharges it well by listing the three result groups and flagging that stats are conditional. For a single-optional-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only error/timeout behavior is left unstated.

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% and the single parameter already documents the wss:// URL format, the configured-relay constraint, the default, and a pointer to nostrclaw_status. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (a relay) and enumerates exactly what the tool returns: reachability/latency over HTTP and WebSocket, the NIP-11 document, and public statistics. That is far more than a restated title. It stops short of naming a sibling, though the singular 'a relay' implicitly contrasts with multi-relay tools like 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?

'First look at a relay' implies this is the entry-point/diagnostic call before deeper tools, which is genuine usage context. However, no alternative is named and no when-not condition is given, so the routing guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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