get_programme

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine domain constraint ('Missing context never establishes eligibility or a travel waiver') and an instruction to preserve evidence dates and warnings, but it remains cryptic about how that surfaces in the response.

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?

It is short and free of filler, but the opening clause is redundant with the tool name and annotations, while the second sentence compresses important guardrails into an opaque phrasing that would benefit from a clarifying clause.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, but for a three-parameter tool with zero schema coverage the definition leaves the agent unable to sensibly choose `include` or `release`. The core purpose and parameter effects are both under-specified.

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% across three parameters. The description never explains what `id` identifies, what `include: "evidence"` unlocks, or what `release` scopes to, so the agent must infer all parameter meaning from bare patterns and a const.

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?

"Read-only get programme" names a verb and resource, but the verb merely restates the tool name and never says what a programme is or what the read returns. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings like get_coverage, get_programme_costs, or list_programmes.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as get_programme_costs or compare_programmes. The second sentence is an interpretive caveat, not a usage instruction.

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