affiliate_effiliation_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 discloses the return type ('Returns a single Programme') and the fields included ('commission, status, advertiser URL'). While it doesn't explicitly state 'read-only' or error behavior, the verb 'Fetch' implies a read operation, and the response details add useful transparency beyond the name.

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 action, no filler. Every clause adds value, including the usage guidance and return details.

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 tool (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It covers what it fetches, when to use it, and how to find the id if missing. It doesn't cover error cases or authentication, but these are less critical for a simple fetch operation.

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 has one parameter (programmeId) with no description (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by clarifying it is the 'network programme id', which distinguishes it from other identifiers. This directly maps to the parameter, providing context the schema lacks.

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' with a clear resource ('a single programme on Effiliation') and identifies the key identifier ('by its network programme id'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'single' and referencing list_programmes for 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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you already know the programme id') and provides a direct alternative ('pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first'). This gives clear decision guidance.

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