affiliate_financeads_get_programme

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the return type ('Returns a single Programme') and highlights key fields (commission, status, advertiser URL), but it does not explicitly mention auth requirements, error behavior if the id is not found, or confirm it is a non-mutating read operation. The verb 'Fetch' implies safety, but this is not explicit.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes usage guidance and return behavior without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place.

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 get with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, return type, and how to discover the id via list_programmes. Minor gaps include not specifying not-found behavior or authentication, but these are not critical for this straightforward fetch tool.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It clarifies that programmeId is the 'network programme id' and that the user should 'already know' it, optionally obtained from list_programmes. This adds sufficient context to the lone parameter, though it could go further by specifying format or validation.

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 financeAds by its network programme id, using a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a single programme on financeAds'). It distinguishes itself from sibling network-specific get_programme tools by naming financeAds and the exact lookup key.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('Use this when you already know the programme id and need its full record') and names the alternative for discovering the id ('pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first'). This provides clear guidance on selection.

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