affiliate_value-commerce-advertiser_get_programme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the operation type via 'Fetch' (implying read-only), states the return type ('Returns a single Programme'), and mentions expected fields (commission, status, advertiser URL). It does not explicitly note side effects, but the verb and context make them negligible.

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 action, and every sentence contributes value: purpose and usage guidance. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 fetch behavior, return type, and usage context, which is good for a simple tool. However, it lacks explanation for the required brand parameter, and does not differentiate between the advertiser and non-advertiser variants beyond a parenthetical hint. Given no annotations or output schema, these omissions reduce completeness.

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 explain parameters. It describes programmeId as the network programme id, but the required brand parameter is entirely unexplained. This leaves half the required inputs without semantic guidance, creating a clear gap.

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 tool fetches a single programme on ValueCommerce (advertiser) by network programme id, specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes from the non-advertiser variant by explicitly calling out '(advertiser)' and from list_programmes by mentioning id discovery.

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 says 'Use this when you already know the programme id and need its full record' and advises pairing with list_programmes when needing to discover the id first. This names the alternative and provides clear conditions for use.

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