affiliate_awin_get_programme

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It accurately describes a read operation ('Fetch') and the return shape ('Returns a single Programme'), but does not mention auth requirements, error handling, or potential rate limits. This is adequate for a simple fetch but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 adding value: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. No redundancy or fluff.

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 description covers the core aspects: the action, the input, the return shape, and the companion discovery tool. It does not clarify how it differs from the sibling affiliate_awin_get_programme_details, but for a single-parameter fetch tool, it is fairly 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds minimal clarification by referring to 'network programme id,' which maps to the programmeId parameter. It confirms the purpose of the parameter but provides no format, examples, 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 it fetches a single Awin programme by its network programme id, specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes from list_programmes by noting when each is appropriate.

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 guidance is provided: use when you already know the programme id and need the full record; pair with list_programmes to discover the id first. This clearly explains when to use this tool versus the alternative.

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