affiliate_webgains-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. It discloses that it returns a single Programme and lists example fields (commission, status, advertiser URL), which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state read-only safety, error handling, or the role of the brand parameter, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, usage guidance and alternative are compactly included, and every sentence adds value. Excellent structure.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, when to use, return type, and alternative. However, it omits any explanation of the required brand parameter and does not describe potential error conditions or full return structure, which are meaningful gaps given the minimal schema/annotation context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'network programme id' for programmeId but completely omits the brand parameter, which is required. The description adds some meaning to one parameter but fails to cover the other, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 Webgains (advertiser) by network programme id, using specific verb+resource+identifier. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning 'single' and pairing with list_programmes for 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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when you already know the programme id and need its full record') and names the alternative for discovering the id first ('pair with list_programmes'). This provides clear usage context and differentiation from the obvious list alternative.

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