affiliate_firstpromoter_get_programme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('Returns a single Programme') and the specific fields included (commission, status, advertiser URL), and implies a read-only operation via 'Fetch'. It does not explicitly mention auth requirements or error behavior, but the fetch semantics are clear enough for a simple read tool.

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 succinct sentences. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds usage guidance and relationship to list_programmes. There is no redundancy or extraneous information, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource.

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 description covers purpose, usage, and return details, which is good for a simple tool. However, the required 'brand' parameter is not explained, and with no output schema or annotations, the agent lacks complete context for correct invocation. This gap prevents a higher score.

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 for parameter meanings. It clarifies programmeId as 'network programme id', but completely fails to explain the required 'brand' parameter. The agent is left guessing what value to provide for brand, which is a significant gap given both parameters are required.

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 'Fetch a single programme' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying 'on FirstPromoter' and 'by its network programme id'. It also explicitly notes it returns a single Programme, further clarifying its role versus list_programmes.

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 'Use this when you already know the programme id and need its full record' and instructs to 'pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first'. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternative tool directly.

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