affiliate_refersion_get_programme

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly explains the fetch behavior, notes it returns a single Programme, and lists the fields returned (commission, status, advertiser URL), going beyond a bare restatement. It implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly mention safety, permissions, or error conditions, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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?

Three concise sentences, each adding value: action, usage context, and relationship with list_programmes. No redundant words, front-loaded with the verb 'Fetch.'

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 two-parameter fetch tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the action, return fields, and usage guidance, but lacks explanation of the brand parameter and potential error cases. Overall sufficiently complete for typical use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the programmeId parameter as 'network programme id' and clarifies the need to know the ID, but it does not explain the brand parameter, leaving ambiguity. This partial coverage warrants a mid-low score.

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 states 'Fetch a single programme on Refersion by its network programme id,' specifying the verb, resource, and identifier. It also distinguishes from sibling list_programmes by noting the pairing for ID discovery.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this when you already know the programme id and need its full record' and advises to pair with list_programmes when discovery is needed, providing clear when-to-use and alternative.

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