affiliate_connexity_get_programme

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the return value ('Returns a single Programme') and lists included fields (commission, status, advertiser URL), and the verb 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation. It lacks error handling details, but for a simple getter this is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no wasted words. The structure is clear and scannable.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and return value. Minor omissions like error cases and authentication expectations are not critical for this simple getter.

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 adds meaning by clarifying the id is the 'network programme id' and explains how to obtain it via list_programmes. This goes beyond the raw schema property name.

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 Connexity'), the resource (programme), and the key input (network programme id). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the exact use case and pointing to list_programmes for id discovery.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this when you already know the programme id and need its full record' and 'pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first.' This clearly differentiates when to use this tool versus the alternative.

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