affiliate_addrevenue_get_programme

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return value ('Returns a single Programme') and mentions key fields (commission, status, advertiser URL). However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature, error behavior, auth requirements, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a tool without structured safety hints.

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?

Two sentences, both purposeful. The first states the core action, the second provides usage context and return information. No fluff or redundancy.

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 one-parameter fetch tool, the description covers what, when, and what to expect, and even references the companion list tool. It omits any auth prerequisite (e.g., verify_auth) and error handling, but these are not critical for this basic get operation.

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 must compensate. It clarifies the single parameter as the 'network programme id' and relates it to list_programmes for discovery. This adds meaning beyond the bare 'string' type, but format, example, and uniqueness details are absent.

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 fetches a single programme on Addrevenue by its network programme id. It uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('single programme on Addrevenue'), and the mention of 'network programme id' distinguishes it from other get_programme tools across networks.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use this when you already know the programme id, and pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first. This directly names the alternative tool and clarifies the exact scenario for each.

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