affiliate_pepperjam_get_programme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses return content (commission, status, advertiser URL) and that a single Programme is returned. The verb 'Fetch' implies read-only, and the description adds useful context about the return fields, though it doesn't explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or error conditions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, no unnecessary words. Every clause contributes: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how to discover the id first.

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 single-fetch tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the return value, the required input meaning, and points to the companion list tool for discovery. No significant gaps remain.

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 schema has one parameter (programmeId, string) with 0% description coverage. The description explains the parameter as 'network programme id', clarifying exactly what identifier is expected. This adds meaning beyond the schema's property name, though it doesn't provide format constraints or examples.

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 verb (Fetch) and resource (a single programme on Pepperjam by network programme id). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying 'single programme' and mentioning the id-based lookup, differentiating 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 ('pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first'). This gives clear selection guidance.

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