affiliate_admitad_get_programme

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type ('Returns a single Programme') and the kind of data included, but it does not address authentication requirements, potential errors, or rate limits. The 'Fetch' verb implies a safe read, yet a bit more context would be needed to be fully transparent.

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 sentences, all of which add value: what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the action, the parameter's role, the return type, and the fallback discovery path. The lack of annotations is compensated by the explicit single-record scope and the mention of the fields included in the record.

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 the parameter is the 'network programme id' and that the user should 'already know the programme id', adding meaning beyond the bare schema name. It stops short of providing a format example, but for a simple single string id this is sufficient.

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 'Fetch a single programme on Admitad by its network programme id' with a specific verb, resource, and network. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying 'single programme' and naming the network, and it lists the returned fields (commission, status, advertiser URL).

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 explicitly says 'Use this when you already know the programme id and need its full record' and advises pairing with list_programmes when the id is unknown. This gives both the when-to-use scenario and a named alternative, satisfying the top criterion.

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