program_payouts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing: read-only vs mutation is only implied by the noun phrasing, and there is no mention of permissions, rate limits, or whether labels/signals are static or computed. The enumeration of data categories is the only behavioral signal offered.

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?

A single nine-word sentence with no filler, and the scoping constraint ('one program') is front-loaded. It is efficient; the problem is omission, not verbosity.

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-parameter read tool with no output schema, listing the four categories of data returned gives the agent a reasonable picture of the response shape. Missing is any confirmation that it is a non-mutating read and any semantics for the sole required parameter.

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% and program_id has an empty description, so the description is the only source of meaning. 'for one program' weakly implies the parameter scopes results to a single program, but it never says whether program_id is a numeric ID, slug, or name, nor what happens with an unknown ID.

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 phrase enumerates the resource contents (payout facts, windows, signals, labels) scoped to 'one program', which is more than a bare restatement of the name. But it is a noun phrase with no verb, so it never states whether it fetches, lists, or computes, and it does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like get_program, program_brief, or program_history.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_program, program_brief, or program_history, all of which plausibly return overlapping program-level data. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no framing of the decision the agent faces.

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