Resolve a sat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the conditional 'if inscribed' behavior and specifies the return fields, which is valuable for a read-only lookup. However, it does not explicitly state error handling or that the operation is read-only.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the input and output. Every word earns its place, and there is no extraneous detail.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description lists the expected return fields, which gives sufficient context. It could include an example or field names, but given the low complexity, it is largely complete.

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% for the single parameter 'sat', so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the input meaning and adds output context, but the schema already documents the same information. No additional syntax or constraints are provided.

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 uses a specific verb 'resolve' with the resource 'sat' and clearly enumerates the exact outputs: Rodarmor rarity, mint block, and current inscription/owner if inscribed. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_block or get_inscription by focusing on sat ordinal properties.

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?

The description clarifies what the tool does but stops short of explicitly stating when to use it over alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools or provide exclusions, though the intended use case is reasonably implied by the context.

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