affiliate_howl_get_programme

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the read scope ('single programme'), the return shape ('Returns a single Programme'), and the record contents. It does not mention authentication or not-found behavior, but for a simple getter this is adequate.

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 action, and no filler. The reference to list_programmes earns its place as it aids tool selection.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and return contents. It omits error/edge-case behavior, but that is a minor gap for this simple fetch 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?

The schema only defines programmeId as a bare string, so the description's clarification that this is the 'network programme id' and that the tool is for already-known IDs adds meaningful context. It does not provide format details, but the single parameter is well explained.

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 resource ('a single programme on Howl'), names the identifier ('network programme id'), and lists the returned fields (commission, status, advertiser URL). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'when you already know the programme id and need its full record.' It also names the alternative path: 'pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first.' This is clear selection guidance.

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