affiliate_everflow_get_programme

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly implies a read-only fetch ('Fetch', 'Returns a single Programme') and adds the data fields included (commission, status, advertiser URL). It does not mention error behavior or authorization, but for a simple get with no side effects, this is strong context 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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, each adding value. No filler or repetition. The pairing with list_programmes is a compact, high-value addition.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema), and the description covers what it returns, the input semantics, and how it fits with list_programmes. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly without further information.

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 compensate. It clarifies that the parameter is the 'network programme id', adding meaning beyond the bare property name 'programmeId'. It does not give format examples, but for a single obvious string parameter, this is adequate compensation.

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 Everflow by its network programme id.' It distinguishes from sibling get_programme tools by naming the network and from list_programmes by explicitly targeting a single record. This is precise and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this when you already know the programme id and need its full record' and gives a clear alternative flow: 'pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first.' This exactly satisfies when-to-use vs. alternatives.

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