affiliate_rakuten_get_programme

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Fetch' and describes the return contents, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication requirements, or error handling (e.g., if the id is invalid). This is adequate but lacks explicit safety or side-effect disclosure.

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 with no redundant detail. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, then provides necessary context and guidance, all without waste.

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 complete: it states what is returned ('single Programme'), key fields ('commission, status, advertiser URL'), and how to obtain the input id. No critical information is missing for an agent to use it 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 schema provides only 'programmeId' as a string with no coverage. The description compensates by clarifying it is the 'network programme id' and by directing users to list_programmes to discover the id. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the bare schema.

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 specifies the exact action ('Fetch a single programme on Rakuten Advertising'), the key parameter ('by its network programme id'), and the return type ('Returns a single Programme'). It also distinguishes from sibling list_programmes by stating the need to already know the id.

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 ('Use this when you already know the programme id and need its full record') and provides an alternative workflow ('pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first'). This gives clear guidance on tool selection relative to its sibling.

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