affiliate_tradedoubler-advertiser_get_programme

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of revealing behavioral traits. It discloses the return type ('Returns a single Programme'), the key data fields ('commission, status, advertiser URL'), and the prerequisite condition (knowing the id), which collectively imply a non-mutating, read-only operation. It does not detail error cases or auth requirements, but for a simple fetch this is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no redundant information. Every clause adds value, including the alternative guidance and the return summary.

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?

The description covers the primary purpose, return contents, and usage context, but leaves the 'brand' parameter undefined, which is necessary for invocation. There is no output schema or annotations, so the description must be self-contained; the brand omission creates a notable completeness gap. Overall, it is serviceable but not fully complete for smooth agent execution.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'programmeId' as 'network programme id', but the required 'brand' parameter is never mentioned or defined. An agent would struggle to know what value to supply for 'brand', making this a significant semantic gap. The description only partially clarifies one of the two 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 clearly states the action ('Fetch'), the resource ('a single programme on Tradedoubler (Advertiser)'), and the exact lookup key ('by its network programme id'). It also distinguishes itself from the generic Tradedoubler get_programme by specifying the Advertiser variant, and from list_programmes by noting it retrieves a single record.

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 tells when to use this tool: 'Use this when you already know the programme id and need its full record.' It also provides a direct alternative for when the id is unknown: 'pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first.' This clearly guides selection among sibling tools.

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