Get VIPMP tips for a topic

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: case-insensitive matching, punctuation tolerance, return format (verbatim markdown), and error handling (placeholder for empty/missing topics). No contradictions with 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 concise with three focused paragraphs: purpose, matching behavior/sibling reference, and parameter/return details. No wasted words, and critical information is front-loaded.

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's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of annotations and output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage, matching, return format, and error handling. The output schema existence reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still adds clarity.

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 has zero description coverage, but the tool description explains parameter behavior in detail: matching rules (case-insensitive, punctuation-tolerant) and provides examples. The description fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 the tool returns operational tips for a specific topic with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('tips'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing list_vipmp_tip_topics and implying that other siblings handle code examples or pages.

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 explains when to use the tool (fetching tips for a topic) and references a sibling to discover available topics. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives for other related tasks, though the sibling list provides context.

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