get_program

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about which program facts are returned, but it does not disclose further behavior such as error cases, availability restrictions, or output format.

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 a single focused sentence that starts with the action verb and immediately states the target resource and lookup key. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant padding.

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 simple read-only two-parameter tool, the description covers the main purpose and the core returned data categories, while annotations cover side effects. It is not fully complete because include_rules is undocumented and there is no routing guidance or mention of prerequisites such as obtaining the slug from a list/search tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that slug is the lookup key, but it says nothing about the include_rules boolean; the statement that rules are always retrieved could even obscure the fact that this parameter controls rule inclusion.

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 the specific verb 'Récupère' (retrieves), targets a precise resource ('un programme') and identifies the key by slug. It further distinguishes this tool from sibling program-related tools by enumerating program definition data (rules, scopes, exclusions, rewards, constraints) rather than hacktivity, rankings, or reports.

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 phrase 'à partir de son slug' makes the triggering context clear: use it when you have a program slug and need program details. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives, leaving it to the agent to infer the choice among the many sibling tools.

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