affiliate_leaddyno_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. The term 'Fetch' clearly implies a read-only operation, and the description explicitly states what is returned (a single Programme) and the fields included (commission, status, advertiser URL). It does not mention error behavior or authentication, but for a simple fetch tool this is adequate disclosure.

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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences: purpose, usage context, and return value/alternative. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler. This is an excellent example of economical, well-structured description.

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 core purpose, return type, and usage pairing, which is decent for a two-parameter get operation. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves out the meaning of 'brand', potential failure modes (e.g., invalid id), and any prerequisite authentication or network context. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent needing to invoke the tool correctly in all scenarios.

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 that programmeId is the 'network programme id', adding meaning for that parameter, but completely omits any explanation for the 'brand' parameter, which is also required. This leaves the agent guessing about the role of brand in the call, a significant gap given both parameters are required.

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 on LeadDyno by its network programme id, distinguishing it from list_programmes and other network-specific get_programme tools. It also specifies the return type (single Programme) and key fields (commission, status, advertiser URL), making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this when you already know the programme id and need its full record.' It also directs users to pair with list_programmes when discovery is needed, clearly naming the alternative. This gives the agent a clear decision rule for when to invoke this tool.

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