Get VIPMP resource schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral value beyond those annotations by disclosing case-insensitive substring matching, the data source ("Resources & Fields reference page"), and the behavior of omitting resource_name ("get every documented resource"). There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 compact and well-organized: one sentence for purpose and source, then a short Args block. Every sentence earns its place, and the main purpose is front-loaded with no unnecessary detail.

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-optional-parameter lookup tool with an output schema and rich read-only/idempotent annotations, the description covers purpose, source, filtering behavior, examples, and default behavior. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 only gives the type and default, so the description carries the full burden. It fully compensates by explaining that resource_name is optional, matches case-insensitively as a substring, gives concrete examples ("customer", "linkedMembership"), and states what happens when omitted. This is exactly the meaning an agent needs beyond the raw 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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Return structured field schemas (name, type, required, description) for VIPMP resources." It clearly identifies the output and the source page, and the resource-schema focus distinguishes it from docs/endpoint/cache siblings in practice. It stops short of an explicit "use this instead of X" statement, so it is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 clear context: use this tool when VIPMP resource field schemas are needed, and the source is the Resources & Fields reference page. It also explains the omit-to-get-everything behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling tool or call out exclusions, so the usage guidance is implied rather than fully explicit.

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