affiliate_tapfiliate_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 the return type (a single Programme) and key fields (commission, status, advertiser URL), and implies read-only behavior via 'Fetch'. It does not discuss error handling or authentication, but for a simple fetch tool this is adequate and more transparent than typical.

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, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no redundant words. Every sentence contributes: what it does, when to use it, and how to combine it with list_programmes.

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 tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the purpose, usage context, return type, and key return fields. It also names the related list tool for discovery. However, it omits any mention of the 'brand' parameter and potential error behavior, leaving minor gaps.

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 clarifies that programmeId is the 'network programme id' and mentions what the full record contains, but it does not explain the 'brand' parameter at all, leaving ambiguity for one of the two required 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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource: a single programme on Tapfiliate by its network programme id. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being Tapfiliate-specific and contrasting with list_programmes.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this when you already know the programme id and need its full record...' and it names the alternative: 'pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first.' This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool vs. the list variant.

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