affiliate_netrefer_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 that the tool returns a single Programme and mentions key fields, but it does not mention authentication requirements, error/not-found behavior, or potential side effects. The 'Fetch' wording implies a read operation, but edge-case behavior remains unspecified.

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 core action, and every clause adds value. No filler or redundant phrasing, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the purpose, the return type, key fields, and pairing strategy. It is nearly complete, though it omits potential error handling or authentication context, which are less critical for a fetch 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%, but the description compensates by explaining that the single parameter is the 'network programme id' and that you should use this tool when you already know the id. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema name 'programmeId', though format specifics are left to the schema.

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 NetRefer by its network programme id, distinguishing it from sibling network-specific get_programme tools and list_programmes. It also specifies what the full record contains (commission, status, advertiser URL), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly says to use this when you already know the programme id and need the full record, and pairs it with list_programmes for id discovery. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternative, which is excellent for tool selection among many similar siblings.

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