affiliate_commission-factory-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 burden. It conveys a read-only 'Fetch' action and describes the return type, but it does not disclose auth prerequisites, error behavior, or side effects beyond the basic fetch semantics.

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 sentences, each earning its place: action, use case, and pairing with list_programmes. The most critical information is front-loaded, with no redundant wording.

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 low-complexity two-parameter fetch tool without an output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use it, and what it returns. It misses only the brand parameter semantics and auth details, so it is nearly complete but not perfect.

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%, so the description should compensate for the bare parameter schema. It maps programmeId to 'network programme id' but completely omits any explanation of the required 'brand' parameter, leaving a significant gap for one of only two parameters.

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 ('Fetch a single programme on Commission Factory (advertiser)') and clearly identifies the resource and the network. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the advertiser variant and the list_programmes counterpart.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when you already know the programme id and need its full record') and points to list_programmes as the alternative for discovering the id, giving clear usage direction.

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