affiliate_affiliate-future_get_programme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits on its own. It discloses the return type ('a single Programme') and example fields (commission, status, advertiser URL), which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention authentication prerequisites, or describe error scenarios. Given the absence of annotations, the burden is only partially met.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action verb 'Fetch', and contains no fluff. Each sentence contributes distinct value: what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns/how it relates to list_programmes.

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 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage conditions, and return content reasonably well. It hints at the return fields and pairing with list_programmes. Gaps remain around authentication and error handling, but the overall low complexity means the description is largely adequate.

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 only one parameter (programmeId) with zero description coverage. The description compensates by identifying it as the 'network programme id' and indicating it should already be known, which adds meaning beyond the raw parameter name. It falls short of explaining format or source, but for a single, self-descriptive parameter, 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 the action ('Fetch a single programme'), the specific resource ('on Affiliate Future'), and the key identifier ('network programme id'). It distinguishes from sibling get_programme tools for other networks by naming the network, and it differentiates from list_programmes by specifying the single-record use case.

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 the tool ('when you already know the programme id') and provides a clear alternative for discovery ('pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first'). This is direct, actionable guidance that helps an agent decide between siblings.

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