affiliate_daisycon-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 states the return is a single Programme with fields like commission, status, and advertiser URL, and implies a read-only operation via 'Fetch.' However, it could be more explicit about read-only semantics, auth requirements, or error behavior, so it misses a perfect score.

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, front-loaded with the action, then usage, then return/pairing. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and return contents, and references the sibling list_programmes for discovery. However, the unexplained 'brand' parameter and lack of explicit read-only declaration leave minor gaps, so it is not fully complete.

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%, and the description only clarifies programmeId by calling it the 'network programme id.' The required 'brand' parameter is entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess its format or purpose. This is a significant gap for a required 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 clearly states the tool fetches a single programme by its network programme id, specifying the Daisycon (advertiser) context. It also distinguishes from sibling list_programmes by explicitly noting this returns a single record, meeting the criteria of specific verb+resource+scope and sibling differentiation.

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 says 'Use this when you already know the programme id and need its full record' and instructs to pair with list_programmes when discovery is needed. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and an explicit alternative, satisfying the highest level.

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