affiliate_kwanko-advertiser_get_programme

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

The description discloses that it 'Returns a single Programme' and lists some fields, which implies a read operation. However, with no annotations, it does not address error behavior (e.g., not found), authentication needs, or why the required `brand` parameter is necessary, leaving some behavioral aspects opaque.

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 composed of two sentences, with the first front-loading the primary action and the second adding usage context and return type. Every word adds value; there is no redundant content.

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 covers the main action, when to use it, and the return type, and even references list_programmes for discovery. However, the unexplained `brand` parameter and lack of error behavior leave notable gaps, especially given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 clarifies that `programmeId` is the 'network programme id', but it never mentions the equally required `brand` parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate for the schema's silence, and failing to explain one of only two required parameters is a major gap.

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's specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a single programme on Kwanko (advertiser) by its network programme id.' It also names the return fields (commission, status, advertiser URL), which sets it apart from sibling list/get tools and clarifies its narrow 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?

The description explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use this when you already know the programme id' and provides an alternative: 'pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first.' This gives 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.