List VIPMP status codes

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses that the tool is 'served from the pre-built index when available, falling back to live extraction if not' and that rebuild_vipmp_index refreshes the index. This adds meaningful operational behavior that the annotations alone do not convey.

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 every sentence adds value: purpose/scope, distinction from error codes, parameter semantics, and index behavior are all covered without redundancy. The Args section is cleanly separated and the whole definition reads efficiently.

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?

The tool has a single optional parameter, rich annotations, an output schema, and a clearlist-style behavior; the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, sibling differentiation, and refresh behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 provides no property description beyond title/default, so the description carries full weight for the query parameter. It clearly states query is optional, a substring filter, case-insensitive, and matches against code, description, or applicable resources — fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 ('Extract') and resource ('resource status code documented across VIPMP docs'), and further pinpoints the scope with the numeric range 1000-1026. It explicitly contrasts these with 'request-failure error codes surfaced by list_vipmp_error_codes', clearly distinguishing it from the nearest sibling.

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 says these are lifecycle status codes 'as opposed to the request-failure error codes surfaced by list_vipmp_error_codes', which is an explicit when-not-to-use and alternative pointer. It also notes when the built-in index is used, when live extraction happens, and when to call rebuild_vipmp_index, giving practical invocation context.

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