affiliate_adtraction-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 discloses that this is a fetch/read operation ('Fetch') and that it returns a single Programme with specific fields (commission, status, advertiser URL). However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior when the id is not found, or the role of the brand parameter, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Each sentence earns its place—first states what it does, second gives usage context and return info. 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 fetch tool with 2 required params and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, return type, and workflow pairing with list_programmes. However, it omits explanation of the 'brand' parameter and any error/edge-case behavior, so it is not fully complete for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 clarify parameters. It clarifies 'programmeId' as 'network programme id', but says nothing about 'brand', a required parameter. The agent is left guessing what 'brand' means or how it relates to the Adtraction advertiser context, so the description only partially compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 states a specific action: 'Fetch a single programme on Adtraction (advertiser) by its network programme id.' It clearly identifies the resource, network variant, and lookup key. It also distinguishes itself from list_programmes by scoping to a single record, and the '(advertiser)' qualifier separates it from the publisher-side programme tool.

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 usage guidance is provided: 'Use this when you already know the programme id and need its full record.' It also gives an alternative: 'pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first,' which tells the agent when not to use this tool and what to use instead.

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