affiliate_everflow-advertiser_get_programme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the transparency burden. It discloses the return type ('a single Programme') and the fields included (commission, status, advertiser URL), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, what happens on a missing ID, or any auth requirements. The word 'Fetch' implies read-only but leaves some behavioral traits unstated.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and scope; the second adds when-to-use and the return contents. Every sentence earns its place, with 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 2-parameter fetch tool, the description covers purpose, usage, and return fields well. However, the missing explanation of the 'brand' parameter and the lack of any error-behavior notes (e.g., not-found handling) mean it is not fully complete. The absence of annotations and output schema increases the burden that the description should shoulder.

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 explain both parameters. It clarifies 'programmeId' as the 'network programme id', but completely ignores the required 'brand' parameter. An agent would not know what value to pass for 'brand' based on the description, which 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 names a specific verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('a single programme on Everflow (Advertiser)'), and the lookup method ('by its network programme id'). It also explicitly contrasts with list_programmes for id discovery, fully distinguishing it from sibling get_programme tools for other networks.

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 states the precise condition for use ('when you already know the programme id and need its full record') and names the alternative for id discovery ('pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first'). This gives explicit when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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