List VIPMP error codes

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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool is served from a pre-built index with fallback to live extraction, and it points to rebuild_vipmp_index for refreshing. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the purpose and data scope, the parameter semantics, and the caching/refresh behavior. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 read tool with an output schema, annotations, and clear behavioral notes, the description is complete. It explains what is extracted, how filtering works, and the index/fallback 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 descriptive text beyond a nullable string with a default of null, so the description carries the full burden. It fully defines query as an optional case-insensitive substring filter that matches against code, reason, or endpoint, which is exactly what an agent needs.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Extract every error code documented across VIPMP docs.' It enumerates the exact kinds of data returned (numeric codes like 1117 and symbolic reason codes like INVALID_LM_MIGRATION_LEVEL), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_vipmp_status_codes or list_vipmp_docs.

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 query parameter is explained with its match semantics ('matches against code, reason, or endpoint' and 'case-insensitive'), giving concrete guidance on how to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of full when-vs-alternatives guidance.

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