affiliate_tune_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 transparency burden. It discloses the return type ('single Programme') and key fields ('commission, status, advertiser URL'), but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, auth requirements, or error/not-found handling. 'Fetch' implies read, but this is implicit.

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 waste. The action, use case, return info, and alternative are all packed front-loaded.

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 one-parameter fetch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, return contents, and alternative. It omits error/not-found behavior and auth prerequisites, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema only provides a property name 'programmeId' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining this is the 'network programme id' and instructing to use list_programmes when the id is unknown, giving operational context for sourcing the value. It does not specify format constraints, but the field is self-descriptive.

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'), resource ('a single programme on TUNE'), and access method ('by its network programme id'). It distinguishes itself from sibling list_programmes and other networks' get_programme tools by explicitly naming TUNE.

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?

It explicitly states 'Use this when you already know the programme id and need its full record,' and gives a direct alternative: 'pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first.' This is explicit when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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