affiliate_levanta_get_programme

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It accurately describes the operation as a fetch, discloses that it returns a single Programme, and lists included fields (commission, status, advertiser URL). It could explicitly note non-mutating behavior, but the read-only nature is implied and the return semantics are well covered.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value: what it does, when to use it, and how to discover the id if needed.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter nature and absence of output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states the return type, key fields, and the relationship to list_programmes. It could mention error cases or full output shape, but the essentials are covered.

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 no description for programmeId (0% coverage), but the description clarifies that this is the 'network programme id', adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It also explains the context for when you would already know this id (via list_programmes), which helps correctly populate the parameter.

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 Levanta by its network programme id', identifying the specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling get_programme tools by specifying the network (Levanta) and the identifier type.

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 this when you already know the programme id and need its full record' and specifically recommends pairing with list_programmes when discovery is needed. This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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