affiliate_impact_get_programme

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates the return type ('Returns a single Programme') and key fields (commission, status, advertiser URL), giving the agent a solid understanding of the operation. It could mention error behavior or authentication, but for a simple read tool this is sufficient.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage guidance and return expectations. Excellent structure.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and how it relates to a sibling tool. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool 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?

The schema has only one parameter (programmeId) with no description, and schema coverage in the description is 0%. However, the description explains the meaning of the parameter ('by its network programme id'), which adds value beyond the bare schema. This compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 specific resource (on Impact), and the key input (by its network programme id). It also distinguishes from siblings by referencing Impact and the pairing with list_programmes, making it unambiguous which tool to select.

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 says 'Use this when you already know the programme id and need its full record' and advises pairing with list_programmes when discovery is needed first. This provides clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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