affiliate_yieldkit_get_programme

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Fetch') and return type ('Returns a single Programme'), and lists the fields returned. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, authentication requirements, or error behavior (e.g., not-found cases), which would improve 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It avoids redundancy and is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the low complexity, minimal schema, and absence of output schema, the description is complete for invocation: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, what the parameter means, what is returned, and how it relates to list_programmes. No critical information is missing for a get-by-id tool.

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 contains only 'programmeId' with zero description coverage, but the description adds crucial meaning by identifying it as the 'network programme id'. This clarifies the source and scope of the identifier, going beyond the bare schema. Still, it does not provide format examples or additional constraints, so it does not fully compensate.

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 Yieldkit by its network programme id, using the specific verb 'Fetch' and identifying the resource. It also distinguishes from sibling get_programme tools by specifying the network and the single-record scope.

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 states when to use this tool ('when you already know the programme id and need its full record') and names the alternative for discovering the id ('pair with list_programmes'). This provides clear usage context and a direct alternative.

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