affiliate_sovrn-commerce_get_programme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the operation is a read-only fetch returning a single Programme object, and clarifies that the id is the network's programme id. It does not cover error behavior, auth prerequisites, or rate limits, but for a simple retrieval tool the core behavior is adequately disclosed.

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 filler. The first sentence states the action, the second gives the usage trigger, and the third explains the return type and the discovery alternative. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter fetch, the description is nearly complete: it defines the output shape, parameter semantics, and relationship to list_programmes. Since there is no output schema, the explicit mention of 'returns a single Programme' and the listed fields adds real value. Minor omissions around not-found behavior or auth are not critical at this complexity level.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining that programmeId is the network's programme id and that it comes from a prior list_programmes call. It adds semantic origin information beyond the bare string schema. It does not provide format or validation details, but for a single self-named 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 and resource: 'Fetch a single programme on Sovrn Commerce by its network programme id.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling get_programme tools by scoping to one network and one record, and from list_programmes by emphasizing 'single.' The mention of returned fields (commission, status, advertiser URL) makes the specific purpose concrete.

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 this tool: 'Use this when you already know the programme id and need its full record.' It also names an alternative for discovery: 'pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first.' This gives clear, actionable selection guidance.

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