affiliate_partnerstack-advertiser_get_programme

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well by stating it returns a single Programme and listing example fields. It does not explicitly note read-only behavior, error cases, or authentication, but for a simple get operation the return disclosure is meaningful and sufficient.

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 concise sentences front-load the core action and key details, with no filler or redundant information. Every clause adds value.

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?

The description covers the primary flow (identify id → fetch record) well, especially given the large sibling list of network-specific get_programme tools. It lacks error/not-found handling and explicit brand semantics, but the simple parameter set and return description make it largely 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%, and the description only explains programmeId via 'by its network programme id'. The required brand parameter is not described at all, leaving the agent to guess its meaning or format. The description partially compensates but does not fully document both required parameters.

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 PartnerStack (advertiser) by network programme id, specifying the exact action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting the advertiser scope and the fields returned (commission, status, advertiser URL).

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 says to use when the programme id is already known and the full record is needed, and recommends pairing with list_programmes when discovery is required. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and identifies an alternative.

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