affiliate_commission-factory_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 state the tool 'Returns a single Programme' and lists example fields, implying a read operation. However, it doesn't disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens if the id is invalid or not found), auth requirements, or rate limits. For a simple fetch, this is a minimum-viable disclosure but has clear gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Fetch a single programme'), and contains no redundant phrasing. Every clause adds value: context, usage, return type, and pairing suggestion.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and key fields (commission, status, advertiser URL). It lacks error-handling and auth details, but given the simplicity of the operation and the explicit pairing guidance, it is nearly complete. A score of 5 would require those missing pieces.

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 must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining the parameter as a 'network programme id' and indicating it is used to fetch a full record. It also suggests pairing with list_programmes to discover the id, which hints at the id's origin. While it doesn't provide format examples, it gives sufficient semantic context for a single string parameter.

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+resource ('Fetch a single programme on Commission Factory') and clearly identifies the input as 'network programme id'. It distinguishes itself from sibling get_programme tools by naming the network ('Commission Factory') and from list_programmes by noting it returns a single record, not a list.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when you already know the programme id and need its full record'. Also names the alternative workflow: 'pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first'. This is clear guidance on usage vs alternatives.

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