affiliate_indoleads_get_programme

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does state that this is a fetch operation returning a single Programme and lists included fields, implying a read-only action. However, it does not mention authentication prerequisites, error behavior, or id format nuances, which would be valuable for safe invocation.

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. Every sentence contributes either the operation, the usage condition, return highlights, or the relationship to a sibling tool.

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 simple single-parameter fetch tool, the description is complete enough: it explains what is returned, the key fields, and how to discover the id when missing. It lacks a note on required authentication, but overall this is more than sufficient for a low-complexity read 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 single parameter programmeId has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the id is the 'network programme id' and that the caller should 'already know' it, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. Still, it omits format examples or how the id relates to other network identifiers.

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 tool 'Fetch a single programme on Indoleads by its network programme id', combining a specific verb with a specific resource. It distinguishes itself from list_programmes and from other networks' get_programme tools by naming Indoleads and emphasizing the single-record-by-id scope.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: use when you already know the programme id and need the full record. It also names an alternative: pair with list_programmes to discover the id first, which directly addresses workflow sequencing.

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