get_program

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'Get' and the enumerated return-content categories signal a read-only lookup, but the description does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or any behavioral side effects. It is adequate for a safe read tool but not deeply transparent.

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 short, purposeful sections: one sentence defines the operation and its return content, and an Args block explains the single parameter. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 single-parameter read lookup with an output schema available, the description is complete: it tells the agent what the tool returns, what the parameter means, and how to obtain the parameter value. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 'slug', but the description adds a plain-language definition, an example ('acme-corp'), and a pointer to list_programs for discovering valid slugs. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full details for a specific program'), then enumerates the exact content categories (scope, reward ranges, guidelines, requirements, out-of-scope rules, disabled vulnerability types). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_program_credentials.

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?

It clearly establishes that the tool is for retrieving details for one known program and includes a practical instruction: 'Use list_programs to find slugs.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it in favor of credentials-oriented siblings, but the context is strong.

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