affiliate_cake_get_programme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly communicates a fetch/read operation with no side effects, and discloses that the return value is a single Programme containing commission, status, and advertiser URL. It does not mention error behavior or authentication, but for a simple read-by-id tool this is a minor gap.

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 lead with the action and resource, then provide selection guidance, return behavior, and the paired list tool. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the return shape, the fields returned, and the discovery workflow. It is complete enough for the agent to select and invoke the tool, though it could add not-found or error behavior.

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 only defines one required string programmeId with zero description coverage. The description adds meaning by calling it the 'network programme id' and explaining that it can be discovered first via list_programmes, making the parameter's purpose and source clear.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a single programme on CAKE by its network programme id.' It explicitly says the result is a single Programme, distinguishing it from list_programmes and from sibling get_programme tools for other networks.

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 states exactly when to use the tool: 'Use this when you already know the programme id and need its full record.' It also names the alternative and workflow: 'pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first.' This is explicit alternative guidance.

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