affiliate_linkconnector_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 discloses the return shape ('Returns a single Programme') and specific fields included (commission, status, advertiser URL), which is useful beyond the schema. The verb 'Fetch' implies read-only, but it doesn't explicitly mention error behavior or authentication needs, a minor gap for a simple getter.

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 action, no repetition of schema details, and every sentence adds value: what it does, when to use it, and how to discover the id.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers the purpose, the trigger condition, the return contents, and the relation to the sibling list_programmes. No important aspect is missing given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 0% and the description compensates by explaining that programmeId is the 'network programme id' and by showing how to discover it via list_programmes. It adds semantic meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema, though it lacks format examples.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('single programme on LinkConnector') and names the key identifier ('network programme id'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the many other get_programme tools by naming the network and from list_programmes by stating it returns a single record.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when you already know the programme id and need its full record') and points to the alternative workflow ('pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first'). This gives the agent direct decision guidance.

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