affiliate_impact-advertiser_get_contract

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

Goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying this is an API read (not a browser flow) and enumerating operations it does not perform (propose, apply, remove, execute browser flow). The 'experimental' status is also disclosed, which is useful context for an agent.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what it does, when to use it, and safety/exclusion info. No filler or 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 single-record fetch tool, the description covers purpose, usage sequence, and expected response content (status, payout terms, dates, raw payload). No output schema exists, so the description appropriately hints at what the response contains. It lacks error/edge-case details, but these are unlikely to be critical for a simple get.

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 description names all three parameters but adds little semantic detail beyond the schema field names. It implies the identifiers come from a prior list_contracts call, which is helpful context, but does not define each parameter's format or source. With 0% schema coverage, this is a minimal pass.

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 states a specific verb ('fetch') with a specific resource ('one read-only Impact contract') and identifies the key identifiers (brand, programmeId, contractId). It clearly distinguishes from list_contracts (single vs multiple) and from mutation tools (read-only vs propose/remove).

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 instructs to use 'after list_contracts' when the operator needs full status, payout terms, dates, and raw payload for a known contract. It also lists exclusions (does not propose, apply, remove, or execute a browser flow), giving clear when-not guidance.

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