affiliate_partnero_get_programme

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

The description uses the verb 'Fetch' to imply read-only behavior and discloses what the return value contains (commission, status, advertiser URL). However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not mention potential errors, authentication requirements, or behavior when the id is not found. Still, for a simple get operation, it provides useful behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, then usage guidance, and finally return value and pairing suggestion. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core context: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how to discover the id. The missing 'brand' parameter semantics and lack of error handling details prevent a perfect score, but overall it is adequate for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It explains 'programmeId' as the network programme id, but 'brand' is not mentioned at all in the description. The schema only specifies type string, leaving the agent uncertain about what values are valid or how brand relates to the programme lookup.

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 Partnero using its network programme id. It specifies the resource (programme), the network (Partnero), and the identifier, distinguishing it from list_programmes and other network-specific 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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you already know the programme id and need its full record') and provides an alternative path ('pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first'). This gives clear contextual guidance beyond mere capability.

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