Search Inscriptions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the return structure '{ inscriptions: [...], count }' which is useful since no output schema exists. However, it does not disclose details like pagination behavior, search matching rules, or the meaning of 'count' (total matches vs returned count).

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 core one-sentence description is concise and front-loaded. The Args and Returns sections add useful output context but repeat the schema parameter details, introducing minor redundancy. Overall it is appropriately sized, not overly verbose.

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 3-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return structure. However, it leaves ambiguity around 'count' and does not explain search behavior (e.g., wildcard, case sensitivity) or when to use this over other search tools. Missing output schema would benefit from more explicit return semantics.

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%, with all parameters documented. The description's Args section largely duplicates the schema without adding new meaning. It provides example content type 'text/html' in the schema but not in the description, so no additional value is given.

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 a specific action: 'Search for inscriptions on the BSV blockchain.' This is distinct from sibling tools like ordnet_get_inscription (likely retrieving a single inscription) and domain search tools. The verb 'Search' and resource 'inscriptions' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of using ordnet_get_inscription for direct lookups or ordnet_content_types for available filters. The description simply states the action without any contextual direction.

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