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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation has side effects, whether URLs are validated, how failures surface, or that it is a pure transformation of the input URL. The single sentence discloses only the bare purpose.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient and well-structured, though it is concise largely because it contains so little information.

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?

The output schema exists and covers return values, and the parameter schema documents all inputs, so the core invocation contract is present. However, with no annotations and no behavioral notes, an agent cannot fully anticipate edge cases such as invalid URLs or custom program handling.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description mentions 'product URL', which loosely maps to the url parameter, but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Build') with a specific resource ('affiliate tracking link') and input ('product URL'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool check_price, which serves a completely different function.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose — you use this when you need an affiliate link — but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of the sibling alternative. Since check_price is a different function entirely, the lack of explicit routing is a minor gap rather than a critical one.

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