affiliate_impact-advertiser_get_programme

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Fetch', 'Returns a single Programme') and lists the returned fields (commission, status, advertiser URL). While it doesn't explicitly state 'read-only' or discuss error cases, the semantics of 'fetch' and 'get' adequately convey the non-mutating nature for this simple 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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the action and identifier; the second provides usage guidance and return type. All information is front-loaded and essential.

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?

Despite being simple, the description covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, what it returns, and how to discover the ID if unknown. The low complexity of the tool (2 params, no output schema) means this description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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. It explains 'programmeId' as 'network programme id' but does not clarify the required 'brand' parameter at all. This leaves a gap for one of the two required parameters.

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 names the exact resource ('a single programme on Impact (advertiser)') along with the key identifier ('network programme id'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling list_programmes and other network-specific 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 states when to use: 'when you already know the programme id and need its full record.' It also names the alternative: 'pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first.' This provides clear context and exclusion.

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