affiliate_post-affiliate-pro_get_programme

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool fetches a single programme, returns specific fields (commission, status, advertiser URL), and that the programme id is the network's id. It does not mention error handling or authentication, but for a simple read operation this is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loads the action, and each sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second states when to use it and its companion tool. There is 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 get tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what it returns, what fields are included, and how it relates to list_programmes. It falls short only on the brand parameter, which is not described. Overall, it is nearly 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that programmeId is the network programme id, which adds meaning. However, the 'brand' parameter is not explained at all, leaving a significant gap for a tool that requires both 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 verb 'Fetch', the specific resource (a single programme on Post Affiliate Pro), and the lookup key (network programme id). It also distinguishes itself from list_programmes by noting it returns a single full record. This is a specific, non-tautological description.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when you already know the programme id and need its full record.' It also names the alternative: 'pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first.' This provides clear guidance on selection among siblings.

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