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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the whole burden. It does disclose the read-only nature, the 2024 goods_id deprecation, server-side goods_id→goods_sign resolution, and the downstream commission flow. It omits auth/pid requirements, rate limits, and error behavior, leaving real gaps for a mutating-in-effect conversion tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and each following clause (preferred input, fallback, commission flow, read-only) adds distinct information. Slightly dense with parentheticals, but no wasted sentences.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover the likely return value (the promotion url) and the pid requirement, but it does neither explicitly. The flow and deprecation context are present, so it is adequate but incomplete for a no-annotation, no-output-schema 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?

Schema coverage is 75% (pid undocumented entirely), yet the description adds genuine decision value the schema lacks: a PREFERRED ordering between goods_sign and goods_id plus the resolution fallback. This goes beyond restating the schema, though pid remains unexplained in both places.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('generate affiliate promotion url') scoped to CPS PDD, which clearly separates it from cps_pdd_goods_search (discovery) and cps_pdd_orders (reporting). An agent can tell what this tool produces without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete routing guidance for inputs: prefer goods_sign, fall back to numeric goods_id from yuantoutao shelf. It does not explicitly name alternative conversion tools (e.g. cps_tpwd, cps_jd_convert) or state when not to use this one, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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