affiliate_admitad-advertiser_get_programme

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates a read operation via 'Fetch' and specifies the return as a single Programme with key fields (commission, status, advertiser URL). However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, auth requirements, error scenarios, or the meaning of the required 'brand' parameter, leaving partial transparency.

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 three focused sentences: action/scope, usage context, and return plus alternative. No redundant words.

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-record GET, the description captures the purpose, usage, return shape, and the naming of the look-up key. It misses an explanation of the 'brand' parameter and does not mention the potential ambiguity with the non-advertiser sibling (affiliate_admitad_get_programme), but overall it's reasonably complete.

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%, and the description only indirectly explains 'programmeId' as the 'network programme id'. The required 'brand' parameter is not mentioned in the description at all, leaving the agent without guidance on what value to provide.

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 'Fetch' with a clear resource ('a single programme on Admitad (advertiser)') and identifies the lookup key ('network programme id'). It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning the alternative list_programmes for discovery.

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?

It states when to use this tool ('when you already know the programme id and need its full record') and when to use the alternative ('pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first'). This is explicit and actionable.

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