affiliate_involve-asia_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 of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly says 'Returns a single Programme' and mentions the included fields, which gives a clear expectation of output. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., what happens if the id is invalid) or authentication requirements, which would be useful but not critical for a simple fetch operation.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action ('Fetch a single programme'), and every sentence adds value. It includes return details and usage guidance without any 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?

The description is complete enough for a simple one-parameter tool: it states the input, the return type ('single Programme'), and the key fields. However, there is no output schema, and the phrase 'full record' is vague—it lists only three example fields, leaving the exact response shape undefined. It also omits error behavior, but given the low complexity, this is a minor gap.

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 provides only the parameter name 'programmeId' with type string and required status, with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by calling it the 'network programme id' and noting that you should already know it, implying it comes from list_programmes. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not specify format constraints (e.g., numeric vs alphanumeric).

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 fetches a single programme by its network programme id, listing the fields returned (commission, status, advertiser URL). It uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('single programme'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_programmes. The name and description align perfectly.

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 states when to use this tool ('when you already know the programme id') and pairs it with list_programmes for the alternative case ('when you need to discover the id first'). This provides clear context for choosing between sibling tools. The guidance is actionable and unambiguous.

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