affiliate_amazon-creators_get_programme

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context: 'Returns a single Programme' and lists the record fields (commission, status, advertiser URL), which helps set expectations. However, it does not disclose error handling (e.g., what happens if the id is not found), authentication requirements, or rate limits. 'Fetch' implies read-only but is not explicit. This is a moderate disclosure for a simple fetch tool.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns/companion tool. There is no redundant phrasing and the most critical information is front-loaded. It is concise without losing substance.

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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations. The description covers the purpose, usage context, and return type, and even explains the discovery workflow via list_programmes. It lacks edge-case details (e.g., not found errors), but given the low complexity, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 one parameter (programmeId) with no description, giving 0% schema coverage. The description compensates by explaining the parameter is the 'network programme id' and that it is the key for fetching the full record. It also implies the id can be obtained from list_programmes. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it does not provide format details like length or allowed characters.

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's function: 'Fetch a single programme on Amazon Creators by its network programme id.' It specifies the verb (fetch), the resource (single programme), the platform (Amazon Creators), and the scope (by id). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_programmes tool, making it easy for an agent to select the correct 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' and 'pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first.' This directly names the alternative sibling tool and states the condition under which each should be used, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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