search_inscriptions

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 implies a read operation via 'search and list' but never states read-only semantics, does not describe result ordering, default page size, the 60-cap behavior, or total-count/next-page signals. It only restates the filter set already visible in the 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by the filter taxonomy. No filler, though the second sentence is largely a restatement of the schema's property list 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 an 11-parameter, all-optional query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what can be filtered but not how results come back, how paging should be driven, or when to prefer a scoped sibling. Adequate but with clear gaps given the schema richness and zero annotation support.

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%, so all 11 parameters (limit, offset, rarity enum, block/number ranges, cursed, recursive) are already documented in the schema. The description's filter list mirrors the schema without adding syntax, default, or range-combination semantics, so 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+resource ('Search and list Bitcoin Ordinals inscriptions') and enumerates the filter dimensions, which is enough for an agent to identify the tool. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings like get_address_inscriptions or get_collection_inscriptions, which also return inscription sets with filtering.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. Nothing tells the agent whether this is the general-purpose discovery endpoint versus the address-, collection-, or tx-scoped siblings, nor what happens with zero filters (a global list?) or how it relates to get_inscription for single lookups.

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