runes_get_etching

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the burden and does disclose the return payload in detail (supply, divisibility, symbol, etching tx, cenotaph status, mint terms, turbo flag), which is real behavioral value. It still omits safety profile (read-only), rate limits, and what happens when the rune is not found or the name is ambiguous.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then a compact list of returned fields, then a format note — all earning their place. The closing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities' is promotional and unrelated to invoking this tool, which costs a point.

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, the description supplies the field-level result list an agent needs to decide whether this call answers its question. Remaining gaps (not-found behavior, read-only declaration) are minor.

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% and the single 'rune' parameter is already documented with example formats. The description's spacer note ('UNCOMMONGOODS' or 'UNCOMMON•GOODS') restates the schema rather than adding new meaning, 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 precise verb+resource+scope: 'Get details for a specific Bitcoin Rune by its name or numeric ID.' The word 'specific' plus the identifier-based lookup cleanly separates it from the sibling list/aggregate tools (runes_list_etchings, runes_get_holders, runes_get_activity).

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?

Usage is only implied by the 'specific ... by name or ID' framing; there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative such as runes_list_etchings for enumeration. The one explicit pointer ('call earning_opportunities') is an unrelated cross-sell rather than invocation guidance.

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