affiliate_daisycon_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 that the tool returns a full record including 'commission, status, advertiser URL,' which is useful behavioral context. It implies a read operation with 'Fetch,' but doesn't explicitly mention side effects, auth requirements, or error handling. However, for a simple get, the transparency is good.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then usage guidance, then return value and pairing. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it covers what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how it relates to list_programmes. It lacks explicit error/edge-case details, but those are less critical for a straightforward fetch. Minor gap: no mention of what happens if the programme id is not found.

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 provides only a 'programmeId' string with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining the parameter is 'its network programme id' and contextualizing it in usage ('when you already know the programme id'). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it doesn't specify the format (e.g., numeric or string).

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's function: 'Fetch a single programme on Daisycon by its network programme id.' It specifies the resource (programme), the network (Daisycon), and the identifier (network programme id). It also distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with list_programmes and mentioning it returns a single Programme.

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.' It also provides an alternative: 'pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first.' This is clear guidance on selection relative to sibling tools.

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