affiliate_flexoffers_get_programme

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

The description discloses the return shape ('Returns a single Programme') and some included fields (commission, status, advertiser URL), which is useful. However, with no annotations, it does not mention authentication requirements, potential errors, rate limits, or side effects, so the behavioral disclosure is only partial.

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 core operation, no redundant filler. Every clause adds either scope, use-case, return info, or workflow guidance.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter origin, return value, and relationship to list_programmes. It could be even more complete by noting auth/error behavior, but it is largely sufficient for this simple 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It adds meaning by clarifying that programmeId is the network-specific programme id and explains how to discover it via list_programmes. For a single required parameter, this is solid 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 clearly states the action ('Fetch a single programme'), the resource ('FlexOffers'), and the lookup key ('network programme id'). It also differentiates from sibling tools like affiliate_flexoffers_list_programmes and other networks' get_programme tools.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool ('when you already know the programme id and need its full record') and points to the alternative ('pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first'). This is strong usage guidance.

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