get_inscription_traits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return content (trait types and values with examples), which is meaningful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about error behavior, whether unindexed/inscriptions without traits return empty results, or whether the lookup is read-only/cached.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return summary. No filler, though the second sentence is largely a restatement of the first with examples rather than new 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool returns and gives illustrative trait categories, which is the key missing piece. It stops short of explaining behavior on inscriptions with no traits or any distinguishing context versus sibling lookups.

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 description coverage is 100%; the single 'id' parameter is already documented in the schema as an inscription ID in {txid}i{index} format. The description adds no format, validation, or interpretation detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (trait information for a collection inscription), and the parenthetical examples (background, body, eyes) make the output concrete. It is distinguishable from get_inscription or get_collection_inscriptions, though it never explicitly says how it relates to those siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite many closely related siblings (get_inscription, get_collection_inscriptions, get_collection_info). The phrase 'collection inscription' only implies the input domain, not when this tool should be chosen.

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