intigriti_get_program

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose the expected return content (scope, rewards, policy, response targets, submission statistics), which gives some indication of the tool's behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, or whether any side effects occur. The 'get' verb implies read-only, but the description could be more explicit about the operational context.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. Every phrase adds value by enumerating the expected output categories. There is no redundancy, filler, or unnecessary detail.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It lists the types of information returned, which is a key behavioral detail. However, it could be improved by explicitly stating the return format (e.g., 'returns an object') or noting any error conditions (e.g., invalid program_id). Since the tool is straightforward, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 already provides a complete description of the sole parameter 'program_id', including its format and meaning. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema. With schema description coverage at 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific bug bounty program'), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like intigriti_list_programs (which lists programs) and intigriti_get_program_scope (which fetches scope only). The additional detail of what information is included (scope, rewards, policy, response targets, submission statistics) makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when 'list_programs' would be more appropriate, nor does it note that 'get_program_scope' is a more specific option for scope-only needs. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references are given, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling list.

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