Get VIPMP tips for a topic

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

Adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: case-insensitive and punctuation-tolerant matching, verbatim markdown return, and graceful placeholder behavior for empty or missing topics. The readOnly and idempotent hints are consistent with the description, with no contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds matching semantics, argument documentation, and return behavior. Every sentence earns its place without redundant fluff or restating the schema.

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?

Covers purpose, parameter semantics, matching behavior, return format, edge cases, and a pointer to the topic-listing sibling. For a one-parameter read-only tool, nothing essential 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by defining `topic`, giving concrete examples like 'customer lifecycle', 'ordering flow', '3YC', and explaining matching semantics. It also routes to `list_vipmp_tip_topics` for valid topic discovery.

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 and resource: 'Return SoftwareOne-authored operational tips for topic' — naming them as rules, gotchas, and field notes that complement Adobe's reference docs. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like list_vipmp_tip_topics or get_vipmp_page.

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?

Offers clear usage context: use it to fetch operational tips for a topic, and use `list_vipmp_tip_topics` to discover available topics. It does not explicitly state when to prefer other siblings like search_vipmp_docs, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can select it correctly.

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