affiliate_affise_get_programme

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a fetch, returns a single Programme, and gives sample fields, conveying a read-only, single-result behavior. It lacks error/edge-case details but for a simple retrieval this is sufficient.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, with each sentence adding a distinct value: what it does, when to use, and what it returns/alternative. 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 its simplicity, the description is complete: it explains the single input, the return type, example fields, and how to discover the id. Without an output schema, it covers the essential behavioral contract fully, though it does not mention potential failure modes or authentication requirements.

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 compensate. It does by calling the parameter 'network programme id' and explaining it is already known. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema property name, though it does not give format or validation details.

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'), the resource ('a single programme on Affise'), and the method ('by its network programme id'). It also lists the fields returned (commission, status, advertiser URL), distinguishing it from generic get_programme siblings and from list_programmes.

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 directs to pair with list_programmes for discovery. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternative tool, exactly what the dimension asks for.

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