affiliate_value-commerce_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 adds 'Returns a single Programme' and the fields included (commission, status, advertiser URL), which is useful. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens if the id is invalid), authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The word 'fetch' implies a read operation, but the description could be more explicit.

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, front-loaded with the primary action. Every clause adds value: the first sentence gives purpose, the second gives usage guidance and return type. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple get-by-id tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main points: what it does, when to use it, the parameter meaning, and the return type. It lacks error or auth details, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a verify_auth sibling tool, this is a minor gap.

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 only declares programmeId as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by specifying 'by its network programme id' and clarifies the id comes from list_programmes, making the parameter meaning unambiguous. It does not provide format details, but for a simple string id, this is sufficient.

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 starts with 'Fetch a single programme on ValueCommerce by its network programme id,' which clearly states the action (fetch), the resource (ValueCommerce programme), and the specific scope (single programme by network id). It distinguishes itself from list_programmes by emphasizing 'single' and explicitly pairing with list_programmes for 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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when you already know the programme id and need its full record' and 'pair with list_programmes when you need to discover the id first.' This directly states when to use this tool over the alternative list_programmes, fulfilling this dimension perfectly.

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