runes_list_etchings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the returned fields (names, IDs, supply, divisibility, symbol, etching tx) and that results are paginated, which is useful given there is no output schema; however it says nothing about read-only safety, authentication needs, rate limits, or ordering of results.

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?

Purpose and return contents are front-loaded and the sibling routing follows logically. The closing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities' is unrelated promotional content that does not help the agent invoke this tool and dilutes focus.

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 two-param list endpoint with no output schema, the description supplies the return-field summary and the escalation path to the detail tool — enough to call it correctly. Missing only operational context (auth, ordering, rate limits) that an unannotated tool would ideally disclose.

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 limit (1-60, default 20) and offset (default 0) already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'with pagination', adding no syntax, ordering, or guidance beyond what the schema provides — 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 (List), a specific resource (Bitcoin Rune etchings / token deployments), and scope (paginated enumeration). It explicitly names the sibling runes_get_etching as the single-rune detail tool, so an agent can distinguish the two immediately.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to runes_get_etching for full details on a specific rune, which is a genuine alternative-selection rule. It does not say when NOT to use this tool (e.g., that no name/symbol filtering is available beyond paging) — though the schema's two params imply it.

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