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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the non-obvious behavioral trait that the response is a lightweight ID-only payload, which is valuable since there is no output schema. It does not mention pagination or handling of addresses with no inscriptions, so it falls short of 5.

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, zero filler; the core purpose comes first and the routing advice to the alternative tool comes second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the description covers purpose, the shape of the return (IDs only), and the sibling alternative. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by stating the response is ID-only, which is what an agent needs to decide between this and getInscriptionsByAddress.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents 'bitcoinAddress'. The description restates the address relationship but adds no format, validation, or edge-case detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the lifting.

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 (return) and resource (Bitcoin Ordinals inscription IDs owned by an address), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling getInscriptionsByAddress. An agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool explicitly ('use getInscriptionsByAddress for full inscription metadata') and gives the condition that selects it (need for full metadata vs. ID-only). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative guidance the dimension asks for.

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