affiliate_webgains_get_programme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns a single Programme with specific fields, which is useful. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior (e.g., invalid id), rate limits, or explicitly state the operation is read-only, though 'Fetch' implies retrieval. This is enough for a simple read but leaves gaps.

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 just two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the usage guidance. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the operation and output, the second gives when-to-use and the alternative. No 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 simple single-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, expected return contents, and how to obtain the id. It lacks details on error cases or authentication, but given the straightforward nature and the clarity of the description, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 provides only the parameter name 'programmeId' with type string and no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that it is a 'network programme id' and references pairing with list_programmes to discover the id, which clarifies its source. However, it does not specify format, constraints, or examples, so the compensation is partial.

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 'Fetch a single programme on Webgains by its network programme id,' which gives a specific verb, resource, and identifier basis. It also distinguishes itself from list_programmes by contrasting 'single programme' with discovering the id first, and names the output type ('Returns a single Programme').

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 the ideal usage context: 'Use this when you already know the programme id and need its full record (commission, status, advertiser URL).' It also names the alternative, list_programmes, for when the id is not yet known, which is clear guidance on when not to use this tool.

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