affiliate_partnerize-advertiser_get_programme

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return type ('Returns a single Programme') and hints at the content ('commission, status, advertiser URL'). However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or address error/edge behaviors, though the verb 'Fetch' strongly implies no mutation.

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 efficiently structured sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage context and return value. No filler; every word earns its place.

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 get-by-id tool, the description covers purpose, return value, and usage context. However, it omits any explanation of the required 'brand' parameter, and given there are sibling advertiser/publisher variants, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this advertiser version over the non-advertiser tool. The core behavior is clear, but these gaps prevent a higher score.

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%, so the description must explain both required parameters. It clarifies programmeId ('by its network programme id'), but the 'brand' parameter is completely unexplained in both the schema and description. This is a significant gap for a required 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 opens with a specific verb ('Fetch'), identifies the exact resource ('a single programme on Partnerize (Advertiser)'), and clarifies the lookup key ('by its network programme id'). It also distinguishes this from list_programmes by noting it returns a single Programme, so the agent knows this is the point lookup tool.

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 this tool ('when you already know the programme id and need its full record') and provides a direct alternative with guidance ('pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first'). This meets the standard for explicit when/alternative guidance.

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