affiliate_travelpayouts_get_programme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only fetch, specifies the return type ('Returns a single Programme'), and lists the content included ('commission, status, advertiser URL'). It does not mention error handling or network-specific requirements, but for a simple fetch operation the 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, each adding value: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. It is front-loaded with the verb and avoids any redundancy or filler.

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 read tool without an output schema, the description covers the core context: purpose, usage, return type, and key fields. It lacks error/edge case behavior (e.g., not-found handling), but given the tool's simplicity and the pairing note with list_programmes, it is reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema provides only the parameter name and type (programmeId, string) with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds the semantic context that the id is a 'network programme id', which is useful but does not provide format, example, or additional guidance. This partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves room for improvement.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch'), names the exact resource ('a single programme on Travelpayouts'), and identifies the key identifier ('network programme id'). It distinguishes itself from sibling get_programme tools by naming the network and from list_programmes by stating it returns a single record. This fully clarifies the tool's purpose.

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 provides a clear alternative ('pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first'). This is direct usage guidance with no ambiguity.

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