affiliate_adservice_get_programme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does mention the return type ('Returns a single Programme') and sample fields (commission, status, advertiser URL), but it does not disclose error behavior, authentication requirements, or side effects. For a simple fetch this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then return information. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

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 single-parameter get tool, the description covers purpose, usage, and return content. It does not describe error cases or note that is a read-only operation, but the simplicity and single parameter reduce the need. The 'Returns a single Programme' helps fill the absence of an output schema.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single programmeId parameter. The description compensates by clarifying it is the 'network programme id' and that you must already have it, adding meaningful context beyond the bare parameter name and type.

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 by its network programme id, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling list_programmes by noting when to pair with it, and the network name is explicitly mentioned in the description and title.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when you already know the programme id' and provides an alternative: 'pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, naming the specific alternative tool.

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