affiliate_adtraction_get_programme

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds return context (single Programme, includes commission/status/advertiser URL), but does not mention prerequisites like authentication (though a verify_auth sibling exists), error behavior for missing/invalid IDs, or that the operation is read-only. The description adds some value but omits several meaningful behavioral details.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource; the second provides when-to-use and an alternative. Every clause adds value, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, return type, and pairing with a related tool. It lacks only explicit auth requirements and error handling, which are somewhat inferred from the sibling verify_auth tool. Overall, it is nearly complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that programmeId is the network's programme id and that it must already be known (discoverable via list_programmes). This adds practical meaning beyond the raw schema, which only says 'type: string.' It does not give format details like numeric vs. string, but that is a minor gap.

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 opens with 'Fetch a single programme on Adtraction by its network programme id,' which names a specific action, resource, and unique key. It further clarifies the record contents (commission, status, advertiser URL), and the sibling list shows many network-specific get_programme tools, so 'on Adtraction' distinguishes this from other networks. The pairing with list_programmes clearly separates discovery from retrieval.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Use this when you already know the programme id and need its full record.' It also names the alternative for discovery: 'pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first.' This gives the agent a clear decision rule between the two complementary tools.

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