affiliate_avantlink_get_programme

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return type ('Returns a single Programme') and examples of included fields, which helps set expectations. However, it omits other behavioral details like authentication requirements or error behavior if the id is not found. It is not misleading, but not fully transparent.

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 earning its place: purpose, when to use, and pairing with list_programmes. It is front-loaded with the core action and free of unnecessary detail.

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 get-by-id tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. It could mention failure modes or authentication, but the tool's simplicity and the explicit return description make it reasonably complete.

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 adds context by calling it 'network programme id' and clarifies that the id is discovered via list_programmes. This is helpful but does not provide format, examples, or other constraints beyond the schema's bare 'programmeId' string.

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 action with a specific verb ('Fetch'), the resource ('a single programme on AvantLink'), and the key identifier ('network programme id'). It also distinguishes itself from the many sibling get_programme tools by naming AvantLink and summarizing the return contents (commission, status, advertiser URL).

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 says when to use this tool ('when you already know the programme id and need its full record') and explicitly names an alternative (list_programmes) for discovering the id first. This is clear, actionable guidance.

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