affiliate_mrge_get_programme

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type ('Returns a single Programme') and the fields included (commission, status, advertiser URL), which is useful. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior, or explicitly confirm it's a read-only operation, though that is implied by 'Fetch'.

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, each adding value: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. It is front-loaded and free of 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 single-parameter fetch tool, the description is quite complete. It covers input, output, and usage context. Minor gap: it doesn't describe error cases or what happens if the ID is invalid, but that's not critical for a straightforward get operation.

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 does by repeatedly referring to 'network programme id' and 'the programme id', clarifying the meaning of the programmeId parameter. The single parameter's purpose is well explained.

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 states a specific action ('Fetch a single programme on mrge by its network programme id') with a clear resource and identifier. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_programmes and other network-specific get_programme tools by explicitly naming the network (mrge).

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 states when to use the tool ('when you already know the programme id and need its full record') and when to use an alternative ('pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first'). This is clear, actionable guidance.

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