affiliate_cj_get_programme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return type ('Returns a single Programme') and key fields (commission, status, advertiser URL), and 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation. It doesn't mention error cases or auth, but for a simple get, it provides sufficient 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, all informative: purpose, usage, and return value/alternative. No filler or repetition. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 single-fetch tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how to discover the id if needed. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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, but the description compensates by explaining that programmeId is the 'network programme id' and that it comes from list_programmes. This gives the parameter meaning beyond just its name and type.

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 action: 'Fetch a single programme on CJ Affiliate by its network programme id.' It specifies the resource, network, and unique identifier, and it distinguishes from list_programmes by emphasizing 'single.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope.

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: 'Use this when you already know the programme id and need its full record.' It also names the alternative: 'pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first.' This is model use-case guidance.

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