affiliate_partnerstack_get_programme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'a single Programme' and lists contained fields (commission, status, advertiser URL), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation with no side effects, nor does it mention error behavior or authentication requirements. The lack of explicit read-only disclosure and error handling keeps this below a 4.

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: the action, the use case, and the return value plus progression to the list tool. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Fetch' and contains no filler or redundant information. Perfectly concise for the tool's purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, return value, and relationship to list_programmes. The only gaps are explicit error handling and authentication prerequisites, which are both minor for this read-only getter pattern. The description sufficiently equips an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema only defines 'programmeId' as a required string with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by clarifying that the parameter is 'the network programme id' and explains how to obtain it via list_programmes. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema, though it stops short of specifying the expected format or type constraints.

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 action: 'Fetch a single programme on PartnerStack by its network programme id.' It identifies the specific resource (Programme on PartnerStack), the identifier used (network programme id), and differentiates from sibling tools by naming the network and contrasting with list_programmes. This is a specific verb+resource statement that leaves no ambiguity.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you already know the programme id and need its full record (commission, status, advertiser URL).' It also gives an explicit alternative: 'pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first.' This clearly distinguishes from the related list tool and tells the agent exactly when to choose this over alternatives.

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