Get Content URL

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds value by specifying the exact return fields (inscriptionId, contentUrl, viewUrl, transactionUrl), which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's output behavior.

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 extremely concise, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by Args and Returns sections. Every line adds necessary information, and it is well-structured for fast parsing by an AI agent.

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 one-parameter getter tool, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, lists the parameter, and provides the return structure (since no output schema exists). Combined with the strong annotations, the agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema provides full coverage (100%) for the single parameter, including its format (txid_outputIndex). The description only repeats 'Inscription ID' without adding any new semantic detail, so it does not meaningfully enhance the schema.

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 clearly states 'Get the URL to view inscription content', using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('URL to view inscription content'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like ordnet_get_inscription by focusing on URLs rather than general inscription data.

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 makes the tool's purpose clear: it returns URLs for viewing inscription content. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct users to alternatives, such as ordnet_get_inscription for full metadata. This is a clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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