affiliate_cj-advertiser_get_programme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does convey read-only behavior through the verb 'Fetch' and states the return type ('Returns a single Programme'), but it does not disclose authentication requirements, error behavior, or any potential side effects. It is adequate but not rich on 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, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place. It is concise, scannable, and avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 with only two parameters and no output schema, but the description's coverage is incomplete: it names the return type but not its structure, ignores the required brand parameter, and does not mention error handling. It is sufficient for a basic understanding but not fully self-contained.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that programmeId is the network programme id, but it entirely omits the required brand parameter, leaving its meaning and relationship to the network unclear. This is a significant gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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 fetches a single programme on CJ Affiliate (advertiser) by its network programme id. It distinguishes itself from list_programmes and other sibling tools by specifying the exact scope (single record by id) and the kind of data returned (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'. It also provides an alternative: 'pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first', giving clear guidance for a common decision point.

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