Describe VIPMP endpoint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that returns schema, error codes, code examples, and release notes. No contradictions. It does not describe rate limits or other traits, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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: two sentences plus structured Args and Example sections. It front-loads the core purpose ('One-shot profile') and every sentence adds value. No filler.

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?

Given the tool has only two simple parameters and an output schema exists (but not shown), the description fully captures the tool's function. It provides enough context for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool among many siblings.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear, human-readable descriptions for both parameters: method (HTTP method with enum listed) and path (API path with an example). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and title.

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 it provides a 'One-shot profile of a VIPMP endpoint' and lists what it returns (schema, error codes, code examples, release notes). The verb 'describe' matches the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it replaces chaining multiple separate invocations.

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 implies when to use this tool: when a comprehensive endpoint profile is needed in one call instead of chaining separate tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the sibling context and the phrase 'so Claude doesn't have to chain 4 separate tool invocations' provide adequate guidance.

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