affiliate_shareasale_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 the operation type ('Fetch' implies read-only), return shape ('Returns a single Programme'), and content examples (commission, status, advertiser URL). However, it omits potential error behavior, authentication prerequisites, or whether the program might be inactive/nonexistent—common gaps for a simple get-by-id tool.

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, no filler. The first sentence states the primary function and key parameter; the second provides use-case and pairing with list_programmes. Every word adds value.

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-by-id tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the action, parameter meaning, return type, and usage hint. It lacks error/edge-case details, but these are less critical here. Overall, it provides a complete operational picture.

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% and the schema only lists programmeId as a string. The description adds meaningful semantics by calling it 'network programme id' and explaining its role in fetching a single programme, which compensates for the bare schema. For a single required parameter, this is sufficient.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a single programme on ShareASale'), and clearly specifies the key identifier ('network programme id'). It also lists included fields (commission, status, advertiser URL), making the tool's purpose distinct from sibling list/get tools across other networks.

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 ('when you already know the programme id and need its full record') and points to the alternative for discovery ('pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first'). This gives clear decision guidance relative to sibling tools.

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