affiliate_growsurf_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 does disclose that it returns a single Programme with example fields (commission, status, advertiser URL), implying a read operation. However, it does not mention potential errors, authentication requirements, or rate limits, which are relevant behavioral traits for a network API call.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the purpose in the first sentence and providing supplementary usage guidance in the following two. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with zero redundancy.

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 low-complexity read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, when to use it, and the return shape. The unclear 'brand' parameter is a notable gap, but the overall context is sufficient for a simple get operation.

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%, and the description fails to compensate. It mentions 'programme id' but does not explicitly map it to the 'programmeId' parameter, and it completely omits any explanation of the required 'brand' parameter. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond them.

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') and clearly identifies the resource ('a single programme on GrowSurf') and the lookup method ('by its network programme id'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_programmes tool by contrasting its single-record focus with discovery use cases.

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 states when to use this tool ('when you already know the programme id') and provides an alternative ('pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first'). This gives clear usage guidance and directs the agent to the correct sibling tool for the complementary scenario.

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