affiliate_monetizze_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. It does disclose that the tool returns a single Programme and enumerates some fields (commission, status, advertiser URL), which provides some behavioral context. However, it does not mention whether authentication is required, error behavior if the id is invalid/not found, or any other side-effect details. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every sentence adds value. It includes purpose, usage condition, return description, and alternative tool guidance with no filler.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how to get the required id. It omits potential error handling and auth requirements, but these are less critical for a straightforward fetch, so it is reasonably complete.

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 clarifies that programmeId is the 'network programme id' and explains how to obtain it via list_programmes, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema field name. It does not specify format or examples, but the key meaning is clear.

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 'Fetch a single programme on Monetizze by its network programme id,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself from list_programmes by emphasizing single-record retrieval by id, and the mention of Monetizze differentiates it from other networks' get_programme tools.

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?

It explicitly provides usage context: 'Use this when you already know the programme id and need its full record' and contrasts with list_programmes: 'pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first.' This is clear when-to-use and alternative guidance, earning a top score.

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