affiliate_ehub_get_programme

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that this is a 'Fetch' operation (implying read-only), returns a single Programme, and includes specific fields (commission, status, advertiser URL). It does not explicitly mention side-effect-free behavior or error cases, but the read-only intent is clear.

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 verb and resource. Every word is informative; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the parameter provenance, the return value, and the complementary list tool. No further context is needed.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates. It clarifies that programmeId is the network-specific id, and explains how to discover it using list_programmes. This adds meaning beyond the bare property name and schema type.

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 on eHUB by its network programme id. It explicitly uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes this from list_programmes and other network-specific get_programme tools by noting it returns a single record and by the pairing advice.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you already know the programme id and need its full record'. It also names the alternative discovery flow: 'pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first'.

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